New tags for biology and medicine.
moeller at inb.uni-luebeck.de
Tue Sep 4 13:08:36 UTC 2007
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 14:43:41 Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> > * When thinking about automated installations of software (i.e. in grid
> > computing) we need a language that allows us to talk about what is
> > eligible for installations and what is not. Debtags are not perfect and
> > other efforts describing various kinds of properties that software can
> > have, there is nothing as sweet as Debtags to talk about what the
> > software is actually doing.
> Well, I'm convinced that DebTags might be a very great tools for different
> things, but I doubt that it is the best idea to base installations of
> clusters on DebTags technology. You certainly want to know _exactly_
> what is installed on your cluster and do not really want it to be changed
> by any change in the DebTags database. I think for this purpose the
> meta package approach is the better way to go.
The debtags would be used as constraints: "I would allow the requested
installation of program X if there is a facet f such that f(X) is stated in
debtags and f is among a set of facets that characterise my cluster because I
You would _not_ use debtags to install every X with f(X) in debtags for some f
> > * Debian integrates communities. This is my way to read Custom Debian
> > Distributions that are basically saying they people flock together to
> > extend Debian towards a particular direction. Specialisation of Debian
> > comes with a specialisation of terms. It is natural.
> Sure. But I think subsetting makes sense in case your main set is
> to large to be managed with the means you have at hand. IMHO this
> is actually not (yet) the case. We want to extend Debian but I don't
> think that we should try to make a science out of classifying and
> subsetting what finally might end up on a real live installation
> all together again.
Hm. But you saw from Benjamin's reply that he found it not natural to have 3D
structures a separate facet, and I do not think we should spend much time on
such easy decisions: of course we need that, but how could Benjamin know?
I am in favour of some decentral managing. The technology may be there to have
a shared maintainance but it would be less efficient and probably
consequently also less fun.
We could have something like: categories with more than 5 entries get into the
main debtags distribution ... or something alike.
> > I like the above sketched suggestion to allow for disjunct sets of facets
> > that are maintained by different communities. It would seem natural to me
> > to eventually allow for sub-facets of some kind with a higher number of
> > ":" in their IDs to thus allow for an easier reduction of complexity.
> > Though ... well ... it may not be needed tomorrow.
> I think we could wait with our fine grained subsets until this is
> implemented. Once this is done also the number of packages that
> rectifies a more fine grained subsetting will have increased. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debtags-devel/attachments/20070904/153dabe0/attachment.pgp
More information about the Debtags-devel