Todo tagging and new tag proposals

[Guillem Jover]

[ CCing Steve due to his recent blog post [0], which comes just few
  days after I remembered about this mail. ]

[0] <http://blog.einval.com/2013/03/30#LEG-assembly-scanning>

Hi!

On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 04:20:40 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:17:39 +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> > Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > gnumach-dev - devel::TODO
> > > 
> > >   This package contains only header files and interface definitions
> > >   for the gnumach kernel, and the page is suggesting to add
> > >   devel::libraru which does not seem appropriate. Probably the problem
> > >   stems from role::devel-lib which is not enterely accurate. So either
> > >   a new devel::headers or refining role::devel-lib?
> > 
> > Well, I know the definition for role::devel-lib that I'm using:
> > software used as a build-time rather than run-time dependency.
> > That definition fits headers well enough.
> 
> Sure, but the page complains about a missing devel::library which I
> think is wrong and is what triggered my initial comment, because the
> package does not provide any library at all.
> 
> I just tagged it devel::rpc (but it still complains about the missing
> tag), which is what the package is providing, the headers are used by
> the programs to call the RPC stubs which are generated at build time by
> an interface generator from the interface definitions (also provided on
> the gnumach-dev package).
> 
> > Most packages full of headers are called libfoo-dev anyway...
> 
> That's because they are part of a library. But not all headers are
> part of libraries.
> 
> > > libaio-dev, libaio1, libglide2, libglide2-dev, libglide3,
> > > libglide3-dev, openhackware - implemented-in::TODO
> > > 
> > >   Those would need something like implemented-in::assembler or
> > >   implemented-in::asm.
> > 
> > Sounds plausible.  Yes, I see the .asm files in the glide source
> > tarball... but if there's assembler in libaio then I'm not
> > recognising it when I look at it, so what am I missing?
> 
> The asm in libaio is inlined in the C source code (specifically in the
> headers), the important thing to me is that because it has asm it
> makes the package archiecture dependent. Having such tag would make it
> really easy to spot packages with possible portability issues.
> 
> > > libufs2 - works-with::TODO
> > > 
> > >   This would need something like works-with::filesystem.
> > 
> > Possible, but we've got an admin::filesystem...
> 
> Yep, that's the one I've used for ufsutils, which is the package
> containing the tools to operate on the filesystem. But is the library
> who directly manipulates the data contained in the filesystem.
> 
> > I would also argue that "filesystem" is an unfortunately vague word.
> > Ideally it would only cover things like NFS and fuse, not underlying
> > diskformats (LVM, RAID etc are admin::configuring hardware::storage)
> > and not directory-hierarchies full of stuff (cruft, gamin etc are
> > works-with::file). 
> 
> Right, although I don't find the word vague, but YMMV.
> 
> > Of course, with a good long description this shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> Sure.

Any other thought on these proposals? The asm ones could have helped
Steve (if packages were all tagged, though). With his data they could
be mass-tagged now for future queries.

Thanks,
Guillem