[Debtags-devel] Updating tags on svn

[Thaddeus H. Black]

Justin B Rye wrote:
> Enrico Zini wrote:
> > You may want to fix the short description here :)
> > 
> >>  Most packages will get no more than one of the four tags
> >>  role::sw:{utility,daemon,application,amusement}.
> > 
> > I imagine this is only relative to the 'role' facet?
> 
> Maybe this is less ambiguous:
> # Packages will not usually get multiple tags out of the set
> # role::sw:{utility,daemon,application,amusement}.

Unfortunately I do not understand this conversation.  Sorry.  Feel free
to clarify.

> There are places where the definitions seem to be describing
> binaries instead of packages,

In Debian terms, I assume that you mean "executables instead of
packages."  If so, you're right.  I couldn't find a more elegant way to
write it.  One could lengthen "as find" to "as the find executable," but
like Goethe, Churchill and Hemingway, we should save the excess words, I
think.

> Rereading them I'm curious
> as to what 
> # Configuration         
> # scripts (as the kernel's) whose only normal mode is a series of    
> # questions and answers
> ...is all about - can you give an example of a Debian package that
> consists of such a script?

The other example which comes to mind is the obsolete xf86config.
However, this is not a package in itself; so, no, I cannot give the
example you seek.  (If a better example occurs to you, let me know.)

The reason I wrote those words was to support Erich's useful criterion
that a utility is something used in a processing chain.  Taken alone,
the words say nothing very important, but in the context they clarify
the point that mere crudity does not make a program a utility.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20050823/e6c55ce6/attachment-0001.pgp