> > > Here is my problem: I've always disliked section "base", as being an
> > > artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
> > > (utils, admin, etc.).
> >
> > The current idea of `Section: base' is totally broken. I brought this topic
> > twice to the lists, but was unab
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Here is my problem: I've always disliked section "base", as being an
> > artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
> > (utils, admin, etc.).
>
> The current idea of `Section: base' is totally broken. I brought this topic
> twice to the lists
> Here is my problem: I've always disliked section "base", as being an
> artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
> (utils, admin, etc.).
The current idea of `Section: base' is totally broken. I brought this topic
twice to the lists, but was unable to "build consensus".
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > I don´t like the
> > alphabetic sorting. Its hard to find something you don´t know the
> > exact name of.
>
> Hm... often "ls */*pattern*" in lftp was needed and sufficient for me
> with current section-based layout. I'm
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> base-files admin ? misc ?
> base-passwd admin ? misc ?
I think we can keep a section named "base". Some packages, like the
above, as well as the kernel packages, fit naturally into that section.
We just drop the r
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:30:41AM +0100, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > Also maybe a lintian test can be written to print an error on
> > "Section: base". Any volunteer for this one ?
>
> I'd say taking 'base' out of 'known_sections' shou
Note: I followup to deb-dev where this thread is (I think) more
appropriate. I think I'll summarize the past events, but that will
probably wait till monday. The curious one will find the beginning of
the thread in the debian-project archive on www.debian.org - it is
refered to from the Debian W
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:51:37PM +0100, Yann Dirson was heard to say:
> > > Daniel Burrows writes:
> > > > Secondly and more importantly, the current sectioning system is
> holding back
> > > > the more advanced interfaces
> > >
> > > I didn't follow such discussions - can you please g
Daniel Burrows writes:
> > I don't intend to map this into a (file-)hierarchy. Till now I
> > thought of 2 approaches:
> >
> > * Using virtual-packages like "gif-language" and "gif-png-translator",
> > and have frontends parse those virtual-package names to, say, provide
> > a "png-screen-t
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> I don´t like the
> alphabetic sorting. Its hard to find something you don´t know the
> exact name of.
Hm... often "ls */*pattern*" in lftp was needed and sufficient for me
with current section-based layout. I'm not sure how worse would be
alphabetic sorting.
> An
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > Of cause main guis should be mentioned, but something like gnome woult
> > be x11/gnome and the first two level would be exactly spezified and
> > relevant. But the third level specifying what subtype of a gui is used
> >
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 09:28:47PM +0100, Yann Dirson was heard to say:
> > Hmm. That sounds somewhat reasonable, except that I don't see how it
> maps
> > to a usable hierarchy -- it seems like you'd get an incredible mess if you
> > tried to represent it. Could you maybe be a little more
Darren O. Benham writes:
> Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
As stated earlier...
> > > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> > > > reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manua
Daniel Burrows writes:
> > > -> File Formats, a listing of all file formats the program can
> > > manipulate,
> > > possibly restricted to some common ones and catch-alls,
> >
> > This could be investigated using the "language/translator" model I
> > succintly depicted in Message-ID:
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 09:58:35PM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > About "daemon" interface, I'd rather classify a daemon as "Nature:
> > server; ClientInterface: whatever-if-useful". I see 2 orthogonal
> > issues here.
>
> Hmm. Most daemons don't come packaged with a client, and clients can
Is this, basicly, a part of policy now?
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Richard Braakman writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> > > reference to it in
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 11:37:50PM +0100, Yann Dirson was heard to say:
>
> Daniel Burrows write:
> > No, there definitely need to be a *lot* more categories based on what a
> > program is or does
>
> I agree, but the official frontend is still dselect AFAIK, and it is
> not able as-is to handle
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> Also maybe a lintian test can be written to print an error on
> "Section: base". Any volunteer for this one ?
I'd say taking 'base' out of 'known_sections' should be sufficient.
BTW: why is the lintian 'unkown-section' tag only Type:
Decklin Foster writes:
>Is there a compelling reasoon to make this hierarchical? Why not just
>have a plain old list such as:
>
>text, console, xlib, xaw, motif, gtk, qt, web.
That would make it difficult to refer to "all x11 apps", whereas using
hierarchical makes it trivial. We stick more to
Daniel Burrows write:
> No, there definitely need to be a *lot* more categories based on what a
> program is or does
I agree, but the official frontend is still dselect AFAIK, and it is
not able as-is to handle deeper hierarchies in a satisfactory manner.
This will probably come with modern fron
Richard Braakman writes:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> > I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> > reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manuals.
>
> I see no reason for it either.
>
> > If there's no (more) reason, I
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> Of cause main guis should be mentioned, but something like gnome woult
> be x11/gnome and the first two level would be exactly spezified and
> relevant. But the third level specifying what subtype of a gui is used
> is probably irrelevant to the user and could be op
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > > > Interface: tty (stdio, dialog), X11 (Xt, Qt)
> > >
> > > Problem I see: we can't sub-classify Xaw and Motif from Xt with such a
> > > syntax.
> >
> > Interface: X11 (Xt (Xaw))
> [...]
> > A Syntax with brackets wo
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > > Interface: tty (stdio, dialog), X11 (Xt, Qt)
> >
> > Problem I see: we can't sub-classify Xaw and Motif from Xt with such a
> > syntax.
>
> Interface: X11 (Xt (Xaw))
[...]
> A Syntax with brackets would save repeating the front part as e.g. in
> X11/X1/Xaw
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ...
> > > tty
> > > tty/stdio
> > > tty/curses
> > > tty/dialog
> > > tty/newt
> > >
> > > X11
> > > X11/Xt
> > > X11/Xt/Xaw
> > > X11/Xt/Motif
> > > X11/Gtk+
> > > X11
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 08:02:20PM -0500, Decklin Foster was heard to say:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > Maybe program should be split up further into stuff like games and
> > such. Also where do windowmanagers go? I would like sections for
> > games, graphics, utils, interfaces.
>
> I'd disagree
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> I wuld suggest to use a syntax like this in the Packages file:
> Interface: tty (stdio, dialog), X11 (Xt, Qt)
Is there a compelling reasoon to make this hierarchical? Why not just
have a plain old list such as:
text, console, xlib, xaw, motif, gtk, qt, web.
For exampl
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ...
> > tty
> > tty/stdio
> > tty/curses
> > tty/dialog
> > tty/newt
> >
> > X11
> > X11/Xt
> > X11/Xt/Xaw
> > X11/Xt/Motif
> > X11/Gtk+
> > X11/Gtk+/GNOME
> > X11/Qt
> > X11/Qt/KDE
> > X11/Tk
>
> I wuld sugge
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> tty
> tty/stdio
> tty/curses
> tty/dialog
> tty/newt
>
> X11
> X11/Xt
> X11/Xt/Xaw
> X11/Xt/Motif
> X11/Gtk+
> X11/Gtk+/GNOME
> X11/Qt
> X11/Qt/KDE
> X11/Tk
I wuld suggest to use a syntax like this in the Packages file:
Interface: tty (stdio, dialog)
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> Isn´t base everything thats on the base.tgz file?
> I allways thought so.
I guess it was at some time, but not any more.
> While your at killing the base section, kill the other sections
> also. Its all a bloody mess. Graphics stuff is in libs, x11 stuff in
> games
Yann Dirson writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > interface: X11
>
> Ah, glad you tell this. I already suggested this some time ago but
> did not get much support then. More on this in another thread - let's
> separate issues.
We should probably define a set of keywords for this. Probl
Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I see it there are several sortings mixed:
>
> priority: thats why theres base
>
> interface: X11
Yes, I like this one. I would love to see packages with a list of
included interfaces. How about a quick brain storm on a list of
possible interface
On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 01:45:17AM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Just some examples: Why are devscripts in util and not in devel? Aren´t
> they for developement?
devscripts (2.1.1) unstable; urgency=low
* Moved package from utils to devel (closes: #33410)
-- Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Isn´t base everything thats on the base.tgz file?
I allways thought so.
While your at killing the base section, kill the other sections
also. Its all a bloody mess. Graphics stuff is in libs, x11 stuff in
games, some dev packages are in dev, some in lib some somewhere else.
Just some examples: Wh
On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 11:01:07PM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
> reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manuals.
I see no reason for it either.
> If there's no (more) reason, I strongly suggest we throw this ugly
> thing AS
Hi there,
Here is my problem: I've always disliked section "base", as being an
artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
(utils, admin, etc.).
I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manuals.
I onc
36 matches
Mail list logo
