bensmail at gmx.net
Wed Nov 29 17:23:33 CET 2006
> > 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.
Maybe, but at least a "virtual" one should be there. Note that this
requires support for virtual pacakges.
> > 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.
Agreed. Any ideas how to solve this issue? We can't post every change of
the vocabulary to debian-devel-announce.
My only idea is to let retagging be done by a large community, i.e.
users and package maintainers. Package maintainers could be encouraged
(e.g. in the packaging guidelines) to check the tagging of their
packages from time to time. They could use the control field to modify
the tagging. A simply format might be:
Tags: +wantTag, -removeTag
Users can use the tagging webpage or a tool of their choice if they
notice tagging mistakes (the tag based package management tools should
mention this option).
> > > 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!
Sorry, I misread your question. I meant to say that it should be tagged
But tagging it devel::editor and having devel::* imply use::developing
is fine with me, too.
Enrico, what are your thoughts on virtual tags?
They will make tagging (or at least writing the tagging tools) more
More information about the Debtags-devel