Which DebTag for Debian-Med ?

[Thijs Kinkhorst]

Hi Charles and the rest,

On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 17:46 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> +
> +Tag: suite::debian-med::bio
> +Description: med-bio
> + This package is installed, recommended or suggested by the med-bio
> metapackage.

Indeed, I pursued this some time ago but as there wasn't a decision on a
definitive form, and I didn't pursue it any further at that time. I
agree that we have to continue with this since tags are very useful to
our goals.

I do not think that "suite" is the right choice, tagging with "field" is
much more useful; as you can see, under "field" are such fields as
astronomy, biology and chemistry already available. Adding
"field::medicine" would be useful to me, and to put subclasses of
medicine below it:

examples:

	field::medicine:pharmacy
	field::medicine:imaging
	field::medicine:practice
	field::medicine:veterinary

But well, I leave the final decision to the debtags developers, since
they are most known with the design of the tags database. But please,
whatever it is, decide on it somewhere soon so we can start :)

I do not think that Charles' patch is appropriate in the sense that the
descriptions are not right. They describe the meta data in terms of
other meta data ("This package is installed [...] by the [...]
metapackage."), and as such a tag does not provide any new information.
In fact, a widespread tagging system could make meta packages obsolete
at some point. The descriptions of the tags should be more in the range
of "Useful with micro-biology in medical reseach" for med-bio.

thanks,

Thijs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20070108/a8169050/attachment.pgp