tags suggestions

[Thorsten Glaser]

Enrico Zini dixit:

>On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 03:13:25PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
>Thanks for the suggestions.  Let's have a look:
>
>> suite::bsd
>
>Can you name about 7 packages that would use this?

mksh, quota stuff, openntpd, libbsd, libbsd-arc4random-perl,
all of the GNU/kFreeBSD tools, am-utils, bsd-mailx, bsdcpio,
bsdgames, bsdgames-nonfree, bsdmainutils, bsdtar, bsdutils,
csh, cups-bsd, cupsys-bsd, dump, fwbuilder-bsd, heirloom-mailx == nail (?),
isakmpd, libamu*, libedit*, lpr, netcat-openbsd, nvi, nvi-doc,
openbsd-inetd, pmake

>> use::scripting or something similar (for shell, perl, python, php, etc.)
>
>The way I see it, something like a shell or python doesn't have to have
>a use: that is, you can use them for pretty much any purpose.

Hm at the moment I have use::login, if so I'd have to remove that.
Wouldn't it be better to include as many uses as possible?

>We are talking, that is, as the main user's goal for the software.

Okay.

>> works-with::software:scripts (for interpreters, obfuscators, etc.)
>
>You can use works-with::software:source for that.

Hmm, vague but okay.

>> devel::lang:shell (for dash, bash, ksh, pdksh, mksh, zsh, but NOT csh/tcsh)
>> maybe you've got to add devel::lang:csh too though ;) dunno about heirloom-sh
>
>This one's difficult: there are many shells, but every shell has some
>scripting differences, which makes me worry whether "devel::lang:shell"
>would mean anything at all for practical purposes.

Superset of POSIX and somewhat compatible to it?
Maybe include Bourne (heirloom-sh).

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font.	-- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"