[Debtags-devel] Proposed Debtags goals for Etch

[Justin B Rye]

Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> Uhh, and btw. admin seems to be a subcategory of use, doesn't it?

Sure, just like devel::!  Except that the uses listed under admin::
tend to require root access.

>>  (I can imagine these labels may annoy, eg, francophone Canadians...

> Well - french i18n-packages could be tagged with culture::canadian too.

And Basque ones *could* be classified under ::spanish, but I really
wouldn't recommend it.

> I always suspected culture was for *culture* not only for languages! (So
> e.g. swissgerman should be swiss instead).

The trouble is that while there are existing standards for en_GB and
de_CH, there's no neutral way of deciding what counts as a separate
culture.  

Besides... tags like ::spanish are likely to be used for two things:
-- "I'm Argentinian, what tools give output I can read?" and
-- "I need help translating this into Spanish, where's an en/es
	dictionary package?"
National boundaries don't really come into it unless they're
associated with different writing systems and/or major dialects.

(Am I missing plausible uses for culture::*?  Anyone in favour of
tagging geekcode as culture::geek?)

>> Tag: field::arts-graphical
>> Description: Creative endeavors in the graphical arts
>> Tag: field::arts-musical
>> Description: Creative endeavors in the musical arts
>
> How about field::arts instead? The fine tuning can be done with
> works-with::{audio,music-notation} for the musical part.

True enough.  (That ::music-notation tag is relatively new.)
 
>> Tag: sound::oss
>> Description: OSS - Open Sound System
>> Tag: sound::alsa
>> Description: ALSA - Advanced Linux Sound Architecture
>
> Hmm, do we really need this -> this would also require to add
> sound::esd, sound::nas,...

Would it really require that?  I don't know much about NAS, but
Esound definitely depends on your soundcard first being set up to
work with *either* OSS *or* ALSA.  Still, I can see that people
who don't own antique soundcards like mine are likely to see these
as more trouble than they're worth. 

>> Tag: suite::xmms
> Already there.

Doh.  I've even added it to things myself.
 
>> Tag: works-with::man
>> Description: troff-formatted manual pages
>> 
>>  (And maybe ::info?  We might even want a format/made-of:: for man
>>  and info, to use on docs packages, but they might get lost among
>>  the it-happens-to-contain-just-one::manpage tags)
>
> We have work-with::plain-text and ::textdocument. Btw. what about this
> distinction? It seems a little bit fuzzy to me. But perhaps it was only
> the description which confused me. However nothing better comes to my
> mind.

Textdocument covers all the formats that display as text but contain
more than just flat strings of characters - .rtf, .html, .doc... The
format:: facet is more specific but doesn't cover man and info,
which I'd use on things like info2man, exim4-doc-info and manedit.

> Btw. we should really get rid of
> the rasterimage tag! This is a really nasty technical term.

Agreed, though we need to keep the raster/vector distinction.
Jargon tagnames are acceptable if search frontends show the
description, but then again we could do that the other way round: 

Tag: works-with::figure
Description: vector-based image formats like... 
Tag: works-with::graphics
Description: ordinary ("raster-image") graphics formats like...

> And please rename langdevel::environment to langdevel::ide!

(That's devel::ide, yes?)
-- 
JBR
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)