[Debtags-devel] Updating tags on svn

[Justin B Rye]

Thaddeus H. Black wrote:
>> They aren't clarifying it for me,
> 
> Are they positively confusing?  If not, if the words are merely a
> meaningless cipher, then we probably need to keep them.  They convey
> useful information to package maintainers.

The principle it's trying to describe is that processes that require
more user input are more application-y, but I'm not sure it conveys
that well.  We don't want package maintainers whose new daemon has a
clever postinst Q&A system using this talk of configuration scripts
as a basis for declaring that the package contains an application!
How about saying:
# Configuration packages (such as base-config) whose only normal
# mode is a series of questions and answers
..?

> As Manoj Srivastava has
> recently pointed out, one of Debian's most important groups of
> users---from the maintainers' point of view---is the maintainers
> themselves.

Especially in the long term, where we want every maintainer creating
their first trial package to be able to come up with good tags.

>> because I'm only guessing what the
>> hypothetical Q&A package would be like - if it's like "make gconfig"
> 
> Now you turn the tables on me.  There are lots of things I do not know
> about Debian; this is one of them.  What is "make gconfig"?

An alternative (2.6-)kernel configurator GUI.  It requires
libglade2-dev (while menuconfig requires libncurses5-dev and xconfig 
requires libqt3-mt-dev plus g++).

>     (c) "yes | linuxconfigurator" would probably produce a
>     nonsensical configuration.

True.  I did once run into someone who'd done (effectively) "yes m",
but only because they came to me for technical support.
-- 
JBR
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)