On Jun 24, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Bartosz Taudul wrote: > 2010/6/24 Jeff Johnson <n3...@mac.com>: >>> Why do we care about RPM groups? >> What else would we discuss if RPMTAG_GROUP did not exist? > I was referring to the general shit state of the group hierarchy in > PLD. Basically 90% of the stuff is in Applications or > X11/Applications, which makes the groups completly useless. There was > some movement to make them more useful, but that was in 2004 and > hadn't been talked about since then. > > New group hierarchy proposition can be found at > http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/PLD-doc/nowe-grupy?rev=HEAD.
This tree is as good as any other I've seen, certainly far far better than synaptic/aptitude choices. Have you considered: Setting up a process to map specific packages into your taxonomy Something like a de.licio.us tagging framework to do the mapping subjectively with "community" (whatever that means) involvement would be one relatively painless process. Any "voting" metric (with all the usual voting "fraud" control issues) would work as well as de.licio.us The other approach used in debtags is to attempt a RDF semantic abstraction in order to truly (and "objectively") hammer out a usable taxonomy. Its "objectively" that is admirable (and interesting to me wrto RPMTAG_GROUP), all the other issues of RDF and smantic and classification and ... that are part of the methodolgy make my head hurt *a lot*. Setting up representations of the tree markup in JSON/XML/YAML/HTML/DocBook/... The package taxonomy that easily and automagically transforms to the largest number of output usage cases is going to "win" in the end. Its not just installers that need to present "package" data in useful forms. And -- if you show me some reasonable markup for your Group: hierarchical tree -- I'll happily patch up RPM to use your markup rather than specspo with rpm -qa --qf '%{GROUP}\n' The patch for other markup isn't anywhere near as hard as getting "consensus" regarding how a package hierarchical namespace SHOULD look. If your markup includes some additional means for general "attribute" tagging of packages, all the better. I have several usage cases in RPM that are blocked solely by lack of "consensus" on how "attributes" should be attached to packages (the RPMTAG_COLLECTION patch on <rpm-ma...@rpm.org> is just one of many usage cases). hth 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en