On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alec Warner wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Joe Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >>>> >>>> I actually object to having crap in dev-python, because things should be >>>> categorized functionally instead of by the language they're implemented >>>> in. 90% of the time you don't care about the language. But category >>>> moves are pretty much pointless, so I don't normally bring it up. >>> >>> Do you mean it is pointless because categories are pointless, or because >>> it is not worth the trouble of doing the move? I assume we inherited >>> the category idea from fbsd ports. >> >> It is pointless because we should probably have tags; not categories. >> It is akin to the Section[1] header in a debian control file. >> >> [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections > > Tags instead of categories . . . Now here's a very interesting idea, indeed. > Has there ever been a proposal like this for Gentoo?
many times. > > I think we could improve on the Debian way of doing (sub)sections And I > think that a good system of tags would do better than most distros which > have a fairly limited set of arbitrary categories (like desktop, system, > utils; who knows what the heck those last two mean, anyway?) But blog-style > multiple tags might be very, very nice, if we could agree on a set of tags > to use, without trapping ourselves into some of the weirder categorization > used by other distros, like Slackware's arcane alphabetic system. > > Tags . . . I like the idea. I like it a lot. Thoughts? Exciting? Or is it an > old issue, and I'm 5 years late to the party. :) Probably more than 5... > > -Alec -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
