Justin B Rye jbr at
Wed Nov 29 02:47:12 CET 2006

Enrico Zini wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 09:58:20AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > > 20:52 #ekhis < bmesing> hmm, what's the use for a JDK?
> > > 20:52 #ekhis < bmesing> There is no use:developing available as far as I see.
> > > I'm in favour of such a tag.  The idea came out (again) recently in the
> > > list:
> > >
> > > It's the second time it came out, and I'm starting to consider that even
> > > if in the previous thread we didn't reach a consensus on it, I should
> > > just add it.
> > I agree. Otherwise the use::axis is incomplete in an important area.
> > However, one problem might be naming this tag. As mornfall points out in
> > the thread you mention, "to develop" has a lot of meanings
> > ( Perhaps the full tag name could
> > be somewhat more descriptive?
> > Perhaps: "Software Development" - though this might imply something to
> > big.
> > Hmm, looking at the devel:: facet, we could use its description for the
> > use::devel tag, which is indeeed "Software Development".
> After looking at the dictionary, I think use::developing is ok.  Then it
> could even be used besides software development, like for example with
> field::electronics, or for game sdk (use::development + game::adventure).
> So I intend to add this in a couple of days:
>   Tag: use::developing
>   Description: Development
> > Feel free to quote me on debtags-devel.

Looking up free-java-sdk, I see it's already tagged "devel::ide
devel::lang:java implemented-in::java".

It's not so much the idea of use::developing being added to the
vocabulary that worries me - it's the idea of having to go through
the 7000-odd packages with devel::* or role::devel-lib tags and
decide whether to add a use::developing tag for each one.

For instance, if I find a package is already tagged use::editing,
does that mean it doesn't need to be tagged use::developing?
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)

More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list