use::developing

[Enrico Zini]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 02:09:15PM +0000, Justin B Rye wrote:

> 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.

I've been giving it a bit of extra thought.  Now I don't think that
everything under devel:: should apply to use::developing.  libfoo-dev is
a development library, it's a tool used by my code but but it's not a
tool that helps to write my code.

In that sense, use::developing should go for example to:
  devel::bugtracker, devel::buildtools, devel::code-generator,
  devel::compiler, devel::debugger, devel::editor, devel::ide,
  devel::interpreter, devel::modelling
but not to, for example:
  devel::debian, devel::doc, devel::docsystem, devel::library,
  devel::packaging, devel::rpc, devel::runtime.

Would this distinction stand?  When I'm looking for development tools
I'm not looking for -dev libraries, and we could address that use case.

For what concerns incomplete tagging, we can fix that somehow: it's
trivial for me to write a script that adds the use::developing tags to
everything that's role::program and devel::* and not one of the 'not'
examples above; that wouldn't make big mistakes, give us a decent start
and we can refine from there like we refine everything else.

Does it make more sense like this?


Ciao,

Enrico

-- 
GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini <enrico at debian.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20061129/9aab532d/attachment.pgp