Review of all the Debian Med debtags, and questions.

[Andreas Tille]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Enrico Zini wrote:

> as far as software is concerned, that software may work with.  I can't
> think of anything like that, so I'd go with "biological-sequence" at the
> moment, and we're always in time to rename it later.

Sounds reasonable.

> works-with::graphs would probably make more sense considering we have
> loads of graph theory and visualisation software around.  We may fix the
> confusion by describing the tag as "Trees and Graphs".

Reasonable as well.

>> use::simulatinng
>>   At least two of our packages would use it (adun.app, epigrass), and
>>   others like flightgear could definitely use it too. I think it would
>>   easily gain critical mass.
>
> Totally.  I'd say this is uncontroversial, so I've added it.

Hopefully with only on 'n' (use::simulating)?

>> special::unmaintained
>>   We unfortunately package some programs that are Upstream-dead, as many
>>   other Debian packages are. Sadly, this tag could become very popular.
>
> Yes.  I am planning a maint::* facet, in cooperation with Debian-QA, to
> convey this sort of information (also, rc-buggy, fringe, obsolete-deps,
> etc.)

Will the rc-buggy automatically maintained by querying BTS?

>> works-with::temperature
>>   We would have three candidate packages, but criticall mass would
>>   probably attained with sensors and weather packages.
>
> I see the need, but I'm looking for a better name: sensors and weather
> packages wouldn't just measure temperature, but also pressure, light,
> wind and whatnot.  So maybe something along the line of
> "works-with::physical-measurements".  "works-with::measurements", even?
> That may include benchmark tools as well, and instinctively I'd say "why
> not?"

Why not? ;-)

>> made-of::data:examples, or role::example
>
> Is it worth to separate examples from documentation?

Sometimes examples are quite large.  At least we have 70 packages with
the string example in the name:

$ apt-cache search example | sed 's/ - .*//' | grep example | wc -l
70

>> use::calculating
>
> Definitely needed.  "calculating" or "computing" ?

I'd slightly tend to "computing" but no strong opinion.

>> Lastly, I have the impression that there are some strong redundancies:
>> role::devel-lib and devel::library (actually, maybe the whole devel::
>> facet could be formulated with appropriate combination of other
>> Debtags). I have systematically used the first and ignored or even
>> deleted the second. (I can repair this if you disagree).
>
> That is redundant indeed, but still both tags make sense in their
> facets.  My gut feeling is to just live with it, and maybe even write
> some code to add one of the tags if the other one is present.

To force the obvious redundancy?  You mean to make sure that different
point of views of the people who do the packaging is penetrated to the
proper place?  It somehow feels strange - but you have the experience
in this field ...

Kind regards

         Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de