Justin B Rye jbr at
Wed Nov 29 15:09:15 CET 2006

Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > 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.

> I would say, that everything tagged devel::* can be implied to be
> use::developing.

I agree - this is exactly why there's no point adding explicit
use::developing tags.

> In my opinion, the devel:: facet is conceptually
> located inside the use:: facet. Perhaps we get some false positives, but
> I doubt it will be many.
> Besides we are having this kind of problem (in a smaller scale)
> everytime we introduce a new tag. We need to trust the community to fix
> that tagging over time (which is really easy now, due to the very nice
> web interface!).

Unfortunately it's a matter of re-tagging, which nobody has any
incentive to bother with.  The result is inconsistent tags, which
are an obstacle to searches.
> > For instance, if I find a package is already tagged use::editing,
> > does that mean it doesn't need to be tagged use::developing?
> I'd say yes.

No you wouldn't!  Look, this is you saying no:

> A package should be tagged use::developing, if software
> development is one of the primary use cases for the package. E.g. I
> would say, that the KDE texteditor "kate" could well be tagged
> use::developing, since its features set is targeted for development
> (syntax highlighting, capabilities for comments and so on). 

kate currently has use::editing but no devel:: tags; if you're
saying it should be tagged as a devel::editor, which seems
plausible, go ahead and tag it, and then answer my question.
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)

More information about the Debtags-devel mailing list