Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl
Hi, While browsing packages in aptitude, I ran into some packages that, to me, seem to be in the wrong section (or at least it's not obvious why they are in the section they are). Section: python seems to be especially bad, I wonder if the rationale was just it was written in Python. These all are in the python section and I can't determine from their description why they are there: bzr-gtk - provides graphical interfaces to Bazaar (bzr) version control calendarserver - Apple's Calendar Server clearsilver-dev - headers and static library for clearsilver epylog - New logs analyzer and parser fusil - Fuzzing program to test applications phenny - extensible IRC bot written in Python planet - Flexible feed aggregator planet-venus - aggregate feed generator pootle - Web-based translation and translation management tool pyslide - Tiny but powerful program to make animated presentations synce-kpm - KDE device manager for Windows Mobile devices system-config-printer - graphical interface to configure the printing system trac-bzr - Bazaar version control (bzr) backend for Trac trac-mercurial - Mercurial version control backend for Trac trac-spamfilter - Spam-prevention plugin for Trac wapiti - Web application vulnerability scanner wmi-client - DCOM/WMI client implementation And in Section: perl: jirc - an IRC to Jabber bridge bot mapivi - Photo viewer and organizer with emphasis on IPTC fields openguides - A web application for managing a collaboratively-written city guide simba - next generation mirroring tool svk - A Distributed Version Control System websimba - web interface for simba (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.) Well, I don't know if you agree with me that written in Python is a poor reason to put a package in the python section, I couldn't find anything about it in the New Maintainers' Guide, for example. But if you do, perhaps a note should be added to the NMG, given how common this seems to be. Sami -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Sami Liedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.) Me agrees. Looks more of irresponsible advertising to me. Well, I don't know if you agree with me that written in Python is a poor reason to put a package in the python section, I couldn't find anything about it in the New Maintainers' Guide, for example. But if you do, perhaps a note should be added to the NMG, given how common this seems to be. Me agrees too. -- my place on the web: floss-and-misc.blogspot.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe schrieb: On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Sami Liedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.) Me agrees. Looks more of irresponsible advertising to me. Depends, I'd say. In the case of phenny, it might be relevant because extensible seems to be a core feature (probably means here: you can easily plug additional python code into it). Still the wrong section. HS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl
(NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.) I mostly agree with this. The exception would be development tools and libraries, where the implementation language can be relevant. OTOH, those kind of tools probably should be in the relevant section. (I sometimes look at implementation language for user apps *if* I expect it's something I'm going to want to hack, but at that level I can just look at the dependencies.) For your main point, that user apps belong in a section relevant to their function, not their implementation, agree 100%. Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:54:52AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.) I mostly agree with this. The exception would be development tools and libraries, where the implementation language can be relevant. OTOH, those kind of tools probably should be in the relevant section. (I sometimes look at implementation language for user apps *if* I expect it's something I'm going to want to hack, but at that level I can just look at the dependencies.) True. And there is debtags which classify by implimentation language: $ aptitude search ~Gimplemented-in::perl For your main point, that user apps belong in a section relevant to their function, not their implementation, agree 100%. Yes. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
