[Debtags-devel] Updating tags on svn

Justin B Rye jbr at edlug.org.uk
Tue Aug 16 23:51:19 UTC 2005

Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
> Revised draft: four tags.  Review and comment.
> role::sw:utility
>  A lean, tightly focused tool (or a collection of such tools), normally
>  run noninteractively, which

Maybe "commonly" or "naturally" rather than "normally".  They're
designed to suit noninteractive uses, forming the basic building
blocks of pipes and toolchains (mixed metaphor alert).

> role::sw:backgrounder
>  A daemon, a program normally run as a cron job, or a program normally
>  invoked automatically in response to a network event.

Even if they aren't daemons they're likely to be invoked out of
run-parts(-style) directories - init.d, cron.d, ip-up.d, hotplug.d,
pam.d, Xsession.d, apt.conf.d...

> role::sw:application
>  Programs too complex, unfocused or featureful (as perl or the
>  autotools) to be called utilities.  Programs whose normal interface
>  is interactive or nonminimalistic (as mozilla or top).  Tools which
>  transform data in intricate, adaptive or highly nonobvious ways (as
>  latex or gcc).

Strange how the upshot is that these are the glossy, powerful,
user-friendly packages, but our definitions always sound like
Would minimalistic dockapps (wmclock, for instance) still be
applications?  Are things like 9menu simplistic enough to be
utilities (despite requiring mouse input)?

> role::sw:game
>  A game.

Perhaps "a game, toy or trivial amusement" to be sure of catching
things like filters or xjokes.

>  .
>  Most packages will get no more than one of the four tags
>  role::sw:{utility,backgrounder,application,game}.

The first exceptions that come to mind are
* ssh - daemon (backgrounder) plus client (utility)
* imagemagick - an application plus a framework of utilities
But a package containing xbloatware plus an update-bloat script (run
as part of the install) is just sw:application.

You know, I think this works.

> I have one comment.  German is a tremendous language, but my
> Germanic pseudo-word "backgrounder" is admittedly uncouth.  Perhaps
> there is a Latin word we can press into service, to go with the Latin
> words "utility" and "application"?  If so, what word can we use in place
> of "backgrounder"?

Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)

More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list