On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 11:58:15PM +0100, Robert Luberda wrote: > I fully agree. Even though the newest doc-base tries to map old sections > into new ones while generating control files in > /var/lib/doc-base/documents, I really think that the doc-base and the menu > hierarchies should be separated, however I need some help with this. If you > have some ideas, how the hierarchy should be changed, I'm looking forward > to hearing them.
Thanks for your efforts on this. I've a few comments only the use case I've found a while ago and that concerns doc-base sections. Namely, the use case was were to put the automatically generated API documentations for OCaml libraries in the archive. Though narrow as it seems, I found stupid to have to reimplement a browsing tool for that while I can use doc-base. However, the most suitable hierarchy I could fine back them was Application/Programming (though now I see that Programming itself would have been a better choice). However, the point is of course that the section is too broad. So ... > Programming (704) => Programming or Programming/$language Programming/OCaml would be better than the status quo for me. But actually I'm not sure if my case would deserve an even finer sub-category such as Programming/$language/ApiReference or similar. What do you think? Would it be possible to let package maintainers to refine some leaf categories? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
