[gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 119 bytes --]

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags

Object or forever hold your peace.

Or argue for 100 posts, either way.

-A

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 273 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Alec Warner:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> 
> Object or forever hold your peace.
> 
> Or argue for 100 posts, either way.
> 
> -A
> 

Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this
only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least
more common ones.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJTLiE2XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w
ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQzMDlCNDQ4NjEyNDI4NjA5REVEMDI3MzIy
MjBDRDFDNUJERUVEMDIwAAoJECIM0cW97tAgxL0QALkNpQpAELADbq/Bz9G8ehmB
bFgJPaDWe/SfnC6VV2zKaIgpTNj6Fa/801sUueXLxVY6AsLpuGt0MJf1Hq8O7pOD
p5MT0zwLfxAuOkFiKDxXcSaGfoV3fRV13PbXv+nSsmBhlek902qMK+a7+nXwxZYx
WtF5PGlIX8JJDvaC6wqdUV0MjSqPrTp1dKOREn6kiBWVRfXcKshFcdpcH74jyzHD
XkT5m9m73FdqJD0Qtje0Ga5iXRKk/zEDQovOAnpbykpmQHRLXGXVPW9s/gm2zqRS
evzYlI5lkSnLrAjSDuoM1t9MLXxb1CtyRKeCjWg5weXL+7YXSe65lqASGa4i27zf
GrydcbRMUERGrcQrDf0Fsee1OepYsPNZ35KxU+yACT0gix5v8kAxheqvgSWRamjw
irwumzpnKV/Xc6vlsy159JwaQqXRcQXK+x+PWQyDe1FESZ+HrpC9NSjzY3L05SpY
rYgd11uQtL+I6RN90pRNYOfBDJ0zDsFw0ZUMe5+nTfL87dgkUN35E014ATQ4dxUF
Y7ZUT7er+Qc40tXNBYeOen2RdpiCKCNy+melsK1qIuh5gIvnTqKhbiw5GSGM/efK
jzr/4WHO1Qm0v0CAN2rR15cYnsvilaIrkSJk0PClqpB85jiwUBjwuz4SNDuded/l
XRcaP6ToJDevR+s55Pom
=PocK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:48 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this
> only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least
> more common ones.

The alternative to consistency/etc is crowdsourcing, but there is no
way to get that in metadata.xml (unless you allow it to be edited by
some more accessible service).

The whole build-it-and-they-will-come approach tends to work better if
you're doing crowdsourcing.  As it stands this is more of a top-down
approach, and that usually works better if the use scenarios are
understood in advance.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:48:06 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
> 
> Alec Warner:
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> > 
> > Object or forever hold your peace.
> > 
> > Or argue for 100 posts, either way.
> 
> Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this
> only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least
> more common ones.

By aggregating a global list of tag names; that way, when you tag a
package you can look for tags on the global list that apply to it, and
if it happens two different ways to name something were brought up you
can also discuss it with one another. I don't think the inconsistency
would become of a size to be concerned about; but yes, at the very
least we need to watch out in the beginning to not let it happen...

Though, choosing the right tag naming early on might be a need for
this to succeed; maybe we can brainstorm some examples of how packages
would be tagged, to get an idea about it.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:48:06 +0000
> hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > Alec Warner:
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> > >
> > > Object or forever hold your peace.
> > >
> > > Or argue for 100 posts, either way.
> >
> > Sounds good, but how do we get consistency in there? I mean... this
> > only works if we have some sort of consensus about tag names, at least
> > more common ones.
>
> By aggregating a global list of tag names; that way, when you tag a
> package you can look for tags on the global list that apply to it, and
> if it happens two different ways to name something were brought up you
> can also discuss it with one another. I don't think the inconsistency
> would become of a size to be concerned about; but yes, at the very
> least we need to watch out in the beginning to not let it happen...
>
> Though, choosing the right tag naming early on might be a need for
> this to succeed; maybe we can brainstorm some examples of how packages
> would be tagged, to get an idea about it.
>

This is basically the same problem with USE flags. Personally I also
dislike global USE flags on multiple levels, so I'm not entirely interested
in tag consistency. That being said, I wouldn't object to such a feature
very strongly. I don't consider it a blocker to GLEP adoption, merely a
concern that we can address later.

-A

>
> --
> With kind regards,
>
> Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
> Gentoo Developer
>
> E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
> GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
> GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2734 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Alec Warner:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>
> wrote: so I'm not entirely interested in tag consistency

What are they for then if I cannot efficiently use them to search for
software? (which I cannot, if there is no consistency)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=/mYw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

hasufell:
> Alec Warner:
>> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> 
>> wrote: so I'm not entirely interested in tag consistency
> 
> What are they for then if I cannot efficiently use them to search
> for software? (which I cannot, if there is no consistency)
> 
> 

That said... if it's not about search terms, but rather about listing
all tags of a single package, then it's pretty useless and people
should rather use "longdescription".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=PYYp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 220 bytes --]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags

And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a problem.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> 
> And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a
> problem.
> 

Finding packages. Descriptions are not consistent, categories too generic.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=jt/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 +0000
hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh:
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> > 
> > And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a
> > problem.
> > 
> 
> Finding packages. Descriptions are not consistent, categories too
> generic.

Please explain, with examples, how tags will help with this.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 +0000 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh:
>>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner
>>> <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
>>> 
>>> And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a 
>>> problem.
>>> 
>> 
>> Finding packages. Descriptions are not consistent, categories
>> too generic.
> 
> Please explain, with examples, how tags will help with this.
> 

When thinking about games, it is pretty obvious and common practice on
almost any gaming platform/service like steam. You can't just say
"this game is an rpg"... it may be a mix of genres. Tags may even
identify features like "multiplay". USE flags cannot deliver that,
because there is no "multiplay" or "3rd-person" flag for obvious
reasons. Descriptions try to be short and and give an idea what the
game is about, not list all the possible genres or common search terms.

It also works the other way around. There are a lot of applications
that are scattered across multiple categories like terminal emulators
or file managers. The user ends up searching the web or wiki instead
of using portage tools which would be far more efficient.

so we have:
* tags to extend categories, e.g. when a package might fit in more
than one
* tags to group similar packages which are scattered across multiple
categories
* tags for features or attributes that cannot be expressed by USE
flags and cannot be guaranteed to be part of the description
* and so on
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=SPv7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Duncan]

Ciaran McCreesh posted on Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:02:58 +0000 as excerpted:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:04:08 +0000 hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh:
>> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
>> > 
>> > And do what with them? Right now this is a solution without a
>> > problem.
>> > 
>> > 
>> Finding packages. Descriptions are not consistent, categories too
>> generic.
> 
> Please explain, with examples, how tags will help with this.

One classic example in such discussions is kde's kmail and gnome's 
evolution.

A package can have only one category so for these, the packager must 
choose either the appropriate DE category (as with kde-base/kmail) and 
leave it unlisted in the appropriate functionality category
(mail-client), or alternatively, choose the appropriate functionality 
category (as with mail-client/evolution), and leave it unlisted under the 
appropriate DE (gnome-base I guess it'd be, since the evolution modules 
are in gnome-extra).

But that limitation goes away with tags as a package could have as many 
tags as people found appropriate, so whatever category the packager 
chooses, it could have both tags and thus be discoverable in either spot.

That does imply that at least one set of tags would correspond roughly to 
categories, tho a single kde tag for example, vs kde-base and kde-misc, 
would arguably suffice.  But tags wouldn't need to be limited to 
categories...

The glep should probably be expanded with several examples like that.

(Tho don't construe this to say that I'm in favor of the idea.  I'm 
neutral in general tho slightly negative as I think there are better ways 
to spend one's time, but gentoo is volunteers, and volunteers spend more 
time when they're motivated, so it's not a zero-sum game and if enough 
people are interested enough to drive it forward, go for it!)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> 
> Object or forever hold your peace.
> 
> Or argue for 100 posts, either way.

A possible problem with this would be whether much maintainers would be
concerned enough to spend their time on this. By spending time thinking
up with tags you give to a package, you lose some time working on a bug.

Adding some quick tags one can think of does "something" when you're
busy; but I'm not sure if limited time would yield a good set of tags.

Crowdsourcing, as brought forward[1] by rich0, could yield a far more
rich set of tags; together with a small bit of moderation for quality.

 [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90693

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alec Warner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 2:57 AM, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
> Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> >
> > Object or forever hold your peace.
> >
> > Or argue for 100 posts, either way.
>
> A possible problem with this would be whether much maintainers would be
> concerned enough to spend their time on this. By spending time thinking
> up with tags you give to a package, you lose some time working on a bug.
>
> Adding some quick tags one can think of does "something" when you're
> busy; but I'm not sure if limited time would yield a good set of tags.
>
> Crowdsourcing, as brought forward[1] by rich0, could yield a far more
> rich set of tags; together with a small bit of moderation for quality.
>
>
Crowdsourcing poses its own set of problems, most of which I'm not eager to
design software around.

I'd rather deploy the GLEP, wait 6 months, see if it failed, and if so, do
something else (or nothing else, and simply repeal it.)

-A


>  [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/90693
>
> --
> With kind regards,
>
> Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
> Gentoo Developer
>
> E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
> GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
> GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2307 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alexander Hof]

Alec Warner dixit:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags

Without expecting to have any weight on the discussion, I just wanted to
let you know: As a system maintainer I like to use the categories, e.g.
when doing 'eix -I media-fonts/' or in package.use 'media-fonts/* X'.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags

   "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo
    history as a giant mistake."

Why?


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 23/03/14 15:46, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo 
> history as a giant mistake."
It does not matter. Just remove that line. It is irrelevant.

- -- 
Alexander
bernalex@gentoo.org
https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlMu98oACgkQRtClrXBQc7VElwD/Siuqz64ggZ23xZ7904sbgcrG
Hkjp62BFzo8/LW5aHhMBAKiME3FuPuY+Ev4o5o/2j5QsKasHjPh0vuiCcHGoTY+N
=pPnG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 16:03:38 +0100
Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 23/03/14 15:46, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> > "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo 
> > history as a giant mistake."

That's not what I wrote. It's a quotation.

> It does not matter. Just remove that line. It is irrelevant.

The point in asking why it's there was to establish why the GLEP as a
whole is relevant. In other words: it would be trivial[1] yet
pains-taking[2] to establish an alternative means to address the package
manager to package targets, but why would we want to do it?

Examples of where atoms fail and where tags do better could enlighten
us.


     jer


[1] Set up a PM wrapper that translates tags into atoms.
[2] Set up a database of such translations, with a really easy
    fail-over to ordinary atoms where the database is incomplete.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jan Matejka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:46:09 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
> Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> 
>    "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo
>     history as a giant mistake."
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
>      jer

Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can express
relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N


- --
Jan Matějka        | Gentoo Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMBi2AAoJEIN+7RD5ejahpUsH/3UPmgwx9PxtEJqzsz4q0zKi
6hfzNgeULOia7n8zIqv+UKS82EgkG1XW16xFabTvuFBM+0cHagIuMmA9ViLC/gHw
DIcefzA9pOQ17Z+KpZJCWUQEzAjlAy2zrTtVaRihos/xo4I6y83tUxfIRq7v+0/e
HRY2A/YTY8/8O+FYf32GfVHbL+1h3rXQXSXz9rd6n+wICfojAzw6Ngnrmr1yZPkO
RRksZVYvmcHE2ve/CtGkmXYyr8qCs1n/gVdnl6M6Y3EBKopL+BgZkJpaDgWsinJj
xwimfUYJbt5GfbVzKINwd+0d8w7cq0vcHLR851/8xHmNXLc+L4MzRnwAXKPK3u8=
=s1CY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:36:19 +0100
Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can
> express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N

No, categories are essentially directories.

I was asking about tags, not about categories.

It appears it's very hard to answer the simple questions of why we need
tags and how we would use them. The answers should typically involve
some explanation of how you're going to use the things once you have
them.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Damien Levac]

On 14-03-24 10:25 AM, Jeroen Roovers wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:36:19 +0100
> Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can
>> express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N
> No, categories are essentially directories.
>
> I was asking about tags, not about categories.
>
> It appears it's very hard to answer the simple questions of why we need
> tags and how we would use them. The answers should typically involve
> some explanation of how you're going to use the things once you have
> them.
>
>
>       jer
>
A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.

A trivial example, a user want to know all terminals available in 
portage. Of course he could try a `emerge --searchdesc terminal`, but 
then he would get anything mentioning terminal in the description: which 
would probably include a lot of "terminal applications" which are not 
terminals themselves...

`emerge --search terminal` just doesn't cut it as "konsole" wouldn't be 
a result but is a terminal emulator...

On the other hand, terminals are spread through many categories 
(gnome-terminal in gnome-base & konsole in kde-base to name the most 
obvious example).

Thus tags are a nice way for user to find the applications they want.

Damien

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:

> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.

I didn't ask for an explanation on the mailing list. I quoted [1]
because it needs to be more specific exactly where it needs to be more
specific. The GLEP still doesn't explain properly why it exists in the
first place.


     jer


[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 261 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:
> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.

Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff
actually working?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Damien Levac]

On 14-03-24 12:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
> Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
> Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff
> actually working?
>
I have no example for package searching... However it is used a lot in 
multimedia search since it is traditional to give tags to video for 
example. If you want a "funny" example of tags, see tags for animes on 
anidb.net --- this allows users to easily find animes that contains 
element they enjoy to see.

That being said, I am surprised that having no example showing it works 
should be a deal breaker for trying it out. Wouldn't that mindset kill 
innovation? Personally, I expect it to be not so great at the beginning, 
as the tags chosen will most likely be the most clever ones on the first 
try, and will get more and more useful as the tag convention get better.

Such a feature could later being used to create applications like *gasp* 
an intuitive GUI interface to portage or for statistical analysis of 
packages...

Damien

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:31:43 -0400
Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:
> That being said, I am surprised that having no example showing it
> works should be a deal breaker for trying it out. Wouldn't that
> mindset kill innovation?

I ask, because this isn't the first time "tags" have been proposed as
the magic solution to everything. Each previous time, everyone has had
a slightly different, incompatible idea of what "tags" are, what
they're supposed to do, and how they're supposed to do it. So I would
like to see someone explain in detail, and without glossing over the
inconvenient technicalities, just how "tags" will help with "searching".

> Such a feature could later being used to create applications like
> *gasp* an intuitive GUI interface to portage or for statistical
> analysis of packages...

Could, maybe. But the current lack of intuitive GUI and the lack of
statistical analysis both have absolutely nothing to do with not having
tags...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Wyatt Epp]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
> Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
>
> Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff
> actually working?
>
eix -C allows you to search for categories.  It's horrendously
under-powered, but almost a useful prototype of what could be.

Pandora uses this general concept with superb granularity for graphing
similarities in music.  That the MGP data is only used for a streaming
service is depressing.

Alternativeto.net is software oriented and has a good bit of this.
Results?  http://alternativeto.net/tag/tiling/ Bam.  Tiling window
managers.  (These are almost certainly all user-sourced; notice the
innocent misuse in that list.)

The various Danbooru-style sites will generally show off impressive
community-sourced rigour as well as proving the efficacy of
alias/implication at scale.  I have a lot of respect for their
collective pep. Most are NSFW, but this one probably won't be (much):
http://safebooru.org/‎

The Library of Congress? (The modern library is practically built on
this sort of metadata.)

Regards,
Wyatt

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Maciej Mrozowski]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On Monday 24 of March 2014 16:28:44 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:55:38 -0400
| Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:
| > A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
| 
| Sure, but can you point to prior examples of this kind of stuff
| actually working?

https://wiki.debian.org/Debtags
http://debtags.debian.net/search/

True, may not be as popular as full-text description search.

regards
MM

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1861 bytes --]

On 25 March 2014 03:55, Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:

> A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
>
> A trivial example, a user want to know all terminals available in portage.
> Of course he could try a `emerge --searchdesc terminal`, but then he would
> get anything mentioning terminal in the description: which would probably
> include a lot of "terminal applications" which are not terminals
> themselves...
>
> `emerge --search terminal` just doesn't cut it as "konsole" wouldn't be a
> result but is a terminal emulator...
>
> On the other hand, terminals are spread through many categories
> (gnome-terminal in gnome-base & konsole in kde-base to name the most
> obvious example).
>
> Thus tags are a nice way for user to find the applications they want.
>


This example for me suggests we'll need to have some kind of process of
defining what tags should be used for what things, similar to how we have a
process for global USE, mostly, because inconsistency is a bad thing here.

Because looking at this example and the results of `eix -cS terminal`, I
see lots of things that may also be ambiguously tagged "terminal" due to
being a terminal based application.

Thus, either "terminal-emulator" or "terminal-app" or similar tags seem
necessary.

emerge --search tag:terminal-app tag:jabber-client  ( or similar ) should
thus result in net-im/mcabber

And now that we're starting to flesh out mock tags that may make sense, it
quickly seems we'll eventually want some kind of tag hierarchy.

But as long as the tag is restricted to [A-Za-z-]+  or similar, we should
have enough syntactical space to add a hierarchy in later if we find out we
need it.

For the sake of avoiding bikeshed, we should avoid hierarchy until we've
proven tags are useful and have discovered we really need hierarchy. YAGNI

-- 
Kent

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2605 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[yac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1572 bytes --]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:39:06 +1300
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 25 March 2014 03:55, Damien Levac <damien.levac@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > A lot of people already replied to this question: package search.
> >
> > A trivial example, a user want to know all terminals available in
> > portage. Of course he could try a `emerge --searchdesc terminal`,
> > but then he would get anything mentioning terminal in the
> > description: which would probably include a lot of "terminal
> > applications" which are not terminals themselves...
> >
> > `emerge --search terminal` just doesn't cut it as "konsole"
> > wouldn't be a result but is a terminal emulator...
> >
> > On the other hand, terminals are spread through many categories
> > (gnome-terminal in gnome-base & konsole in kde-base to name the most
> > obvious example).
> >
> > Thus tags are a nice way for user to find the applications they
> > want.
> >
> 
> Because looking at this example and the results of `eix -cS
> terminal`, I see lots of things that may also be ambiguously tagged
> "terminal" due to being a terminal based application.
> 
> Thus, either "terminal-emulator" or "terminal-app" or similar tags
> seem necessary.
> 
> emerge --search tag:terminal-app tag:jabber-client  ( or similar )
> should thus result in net-im/mcabber

You do this by searching for intersection of tags.

terminal ∩ jabber ∩ client

---
Jan Matějka        | Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 387 bytes --]

On 29 March 2014 09:56, yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:

> terminal ∩ jabber ∩ client


And now you want *only* terminal terminals, do you have to search for

terminal ∩ !( jabber ∪ client ∪ everything ∪ else ) ?

Or

terminal ∩ emulator

( Which may include terminals for emulators instead of terminal emulators )

-- 
Kent

http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 844 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Gordon Pettey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 634 bytes --]

And now you file a bug to get that incorrectly applied "terminal" tag
changed to "cli", because they don't mean the same thing.


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 29 March 2014 09:56, yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> terminal ∩ jabber ∩ client
>
>
> And now you want *only* terminal terminals, do you have to search for
>
> terminal ∩ !( jabber ∪ client ∪ everything ∪ else ) ?
>
> Or
>
> terminal ∩ emulator
>
> ( Which may include terminals for emulators instead of terminal emulators )
>
> --
> Kent
>
> http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1444 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Wyatt Epp]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This example for me suggests we'll need to have some kind of process of
> defining what tags should be used for what things, similar to how we have a
> process for global USE, mostly, because inconsistency is a bad thing here.
>
Yes, you want a controlled, well-defined vocabulary.  That's
important.  On the other hand, don't get too bent out of shape about
it.  These things fall over when you start adding dumb arbitrary
restrictions like "there needs to be consensus" or "there need to be
at least n packages beforehand".

> Because looking at this example and the results of `eix -cS terminal`, I see
> lots of things that may also be ambiguously tagged "terminal" due to being a
> terminal based application.
>
> Thus, either "terminal-emulator" or "terminal-app" or similar tags seem
> necessary.
>
terminal: terminal emulators.  Make it an alias to terminal_emulator.
cli: things that have a normal, line-based terminal interface. See also: curses.

It's not hard to choose good, unambiguous tags when you can use
aliasing to shorthand and unify.  That's why it's more important than
implication, because controlling your vocabulary is seriously
important.

> And now that we're starting to flesh out mock tags that may make sense, it
> quickly seems we'll eventually want some kind of tag hierarchy.
>
No.  You really, really, reaaaaaally don't.  At least not in the sense
that you seem to be thinking.  It makes tags annoying to add and
annoying to use, so no one does either and the whole thing falls over.

> But as long as the tag is restricted to [A-Za-z-]+  or similar, we should
> have enough syntactical space to add a hierarchy in later if we find out we
> need it.
>
Don't worry, we won't.  With only the facilities I've outlined in my
first post, the system will scale well beyond a million packages and
tens of thousands of unique tags, so don't worry too much about
exhausting our semantic description space.

Cheers,
Wyatt

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jan Matejka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:25:12 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:36:19 +0100
> Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can
> > express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N
> 
> No, categories are essentially directories.

fixed: categories are essentially also directories.

same thing, 1:N relationship without symlinks and other misuse of
filesystem.

> I was asking about tags, not about categories.

The original mails are:

> On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:46:09 +0100
> Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
> > Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >   
> > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags  
> > 
> >    "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo
> >     history as a giant mistake."
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > 
> >      jer  

> Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can
> express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N

How is this a question about tags and not categories?
 
> It appears it's very hard to answer the simple questions of why we
> need tags and how we would use them. The answers should typically
> involve some explanation of how you're going to use the things once
> you have them.
> 
> 
>      jer
> 


- --
Jan Matějka        | Gentoo Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMSouAAoJEIN+7RD5ejaho4AH/1YFbArFwx6t8OoI8yrWCulA
LDt5qBAcZiJoqV9H1V5YdNgcNiLDKIyTCPbkWc4obkgRuNVIJxFAe+duYRQydudW
6KKS2lYQXWSkbDRmJTWOt7BnerHyemvk6AluQn741a2uPZyUI//FPQL8fZkYlR6i
3HFFlW0dI6PHa/9Np8G+RBAs29e8qAR7QKQzDLd9BF/s+6KIK2/FO8pAgMdZBVKk
jJ4Aq1AuRsqrdY0HO940Boiy0ylBFjxB27ej59UmjAzvyOMj9YRf1LqNkgMABENu
ohEckguSryOpBjjD2ZaZrfMbbJTGqfVgz44nhT0s6Nbocb5RmVYp988GIwFQCg4=
=1uIP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:03:08 +0100
Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > No, categories are essentially directories.
> 
> fixed: categories are essentially also directories.

Also? No, categories are *essentially* directories: they keep files
apart that should not go together. In precisely that way, their names
happen to aid in building unique atoms, which you need to be able to
tell a package manager (or development tool) which precise bunch of
files you want to read/address/target/modify/etc.

They are *also* other things, like identifiers for actual categories of
packages (hence the name), which may or may not suit someone's needs in
finding packages based on keywords.

Stating in a GLEP that they're a "giant mistake" means you'll have to
polish the document till you have rephrased that into something true
and acceptable, or until you have purged every mention and reference of
the "giant mistake" because it does not serve the purpose of the GLEP
at all.

Categories are *essential* to the way the repositories now work, and
they're not going away, especially not by way of this GLEP. See below.

> > I was asking about tags, not about categories.
> 
> The original mails are:
> 
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:46:09 +0100
> > Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
> > > Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags  
> > > 
> > >    "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of gentoo
> > >     history as a giant mistake."
> > > 
> > > Why?

> > Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can
> > express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N
> 
> How is this a question about tags and not categories?

The GLEP's statements about categories appear to be a straw man. It
basically states that:

 * we introduced categories to aid in finding packages
 * but it turned out that categories suck at helping us find packages
 * so now we need to add "tags"
 * but we can keep categories because they have proven useful for other
   stuff

You seem to be repeating the same illogical argument here. Now don't
fix it here: go fix the GLEP.


     jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[yac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2781 bytes --]

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:31:45 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:03:08 +0100
> Jan Matejka <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > > No, categories are essentially directories.
> > 
> > fixed: categories are essentially also directories.
> 
> Also? No, categories are *essentially* directories: they keep files
> apart that should not go together. In precisely that way, their names
> happen to aid in building unique atoms, which you need to be able to
> tell a package manager (or development tool) which precise bunch of
> files you want to read/address/target/modify/etc.
> 
> They are *also* other things, like identifiers for actual categories
> of packages (hence the name)

These are all accidental properties of our categories application. I
don't see how they are relevant.

What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties
of categories and tags.

> which may or may not suit someone's
> needs in finding packages based on keywords.

That's where tags comes in.

> Stating in a GLEP that they're a "giant mistake" means you'll have to
> polish the document till you have rephrased that into something true

agreed.

> and acceptable, or until you have purged every mention and reference
> of the "giant mistake" because it does not serve the purpose of the
> GLEP at all.
> 
> Categories are *essential* to the way the repositories now work, and
> they're not going away, especially not by way of this GLEP. See below.
> 
> > > I was asking about tags, not about categories.
> > 
> > The original mails are:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 15:46:09 +0100
> > > Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
> > > > Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > >   
> > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags  
> > > > 
> > > >    "This GLEP author would love to blight categories out of
> > > > gentoo history as a giant mistake."
> > > > 
> > > > Why?
> 
> > > Categories are essentially tags, only less powerful as they can
> > > express relationship of 1:N while tags are can express M:N
> > 
> > How is this a question about tags and not categories?
> 
> The GLEP's statements about categories appear to be a straw man. It
> basically states that:
> 
>  * we introduced categories to aid in finding packages
>  * but it turned out that categories suck at helping us find packages
>  * so now we need to add "tags"
>  * but we can keep categories because they have proven useful for
> other stuff

Please explain how is the straw man different from real issue.

---
Jan Matějka        | Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 427 bytes --]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100
yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties
> of categories and tags.

You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that they
didn't originally represent. From a package mangler perspective,
categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're fundamentally
part of a package's name.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Wyatt Epp]

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100
> yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental properties
>> of categories and tags.
>
> You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that they
> didn't originally represent.

No one's redefining anything.  You seem awfully fixated on the history
that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really matter in this
context.  Regardless of any of that, people can and _do_ attempt to
use categories as a rudimentary method of attempting to search for
packages.

As you and several others have so eloquently pointed out, that's not
their "purpose".  Concurrently, from the other direction, myself and
several others have noted that they're thoroughly inadequate for that
anyway.  That's why this topic keeps coming up and why this
(work-in-progress) GLEP exists in the first place.

> From a package mangler perspective,
> categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're fundamentally
> part of a package's name.
>
From that standpoint, they're even less adequate for lookup; encoding
metadata in names has never turned out well for anyone.

Cheers,
Wyatt

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400
Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100
> > yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental
> >> properties of categories and tags.
> >
> > You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that
> > they didn't originally represent.
> 
> No one's redefining anything.  You seem awfully fixated on the history
> that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really matter in this
> context.  Regardless of any of that, people can and _do_ attempt to
> use categories as a rudimentary method of attempting to search for
> packages.

"Giving something a unique unambiguous name" is not a historical issue.
It's something we still need, and a core part of how package manglers
work. You can't just pretend that categories there for exactly this.

> > From a package mangler perspective,
> > categories aren't just "a label" for a package. They're
> > fundamentally part of a package's name.
> >
> From that standpoint, they're even less adequate for lookup; encoding
> metadata in names has never turned out well for anyone.

Things still need a unique unambiguous name. It's that or GUIDs...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Ciaran McCreesh:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400 Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh 
>> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100 yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental 
>>>> properties of categories and tags.
>>> 
>>> You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept
>>> that they didn't originally represent.
>> 
>> No one's redefining anything.  You seem awfully fixated on the
>> history that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really
>> matter in this context.  Regardless of any of that, people can
>> and _do_ attempt to use categories as a rudimentary method of
>> attempting to search for packages.
> 
> "Giving something a unique unambiguous name" is not a historical
> issue. It's something we still need, and a core part of how package
> manglers work. You can't just pretend that categories there for
> exactly this.
> 
>>> From a package mangler perspective, categories aren't just "a
>>> label" for a package. They're fundamentally part of a package's
>>> name.
>>> 
>> From that standpoint, they're even less adequate for lookup;
>> encoding metadata in names has never turned out well for anyone.
> 
> Things still need a unique unambiguous name. It's that or GUIDs...
> 

derailed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ygQ2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[yac]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1993 bytes --]

On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 20:02:30 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:46:49 -0400
> Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> > <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 03:53:47 +0100
> > > yac <yac@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >> What I was describing is the difference between fundamental
> > >> properties of categories and tags.
> > >
> > > You are trying to redefine categories in terms of a concept that
> > > they didn't originally represent.
> > 
> > No one's redefining anything.  You seem awfully fixated on the
> > history that forced categories to exist, which doesn't really
> > matter in this context.  Regardless of any of that, people can and
> > _do_ attempt to use categories as a rudimentary method of
> > attempting to search for packages.
> 
> "Giving something a unique unambiguous name" is not a historical
> issue. It's something we still need, and a core part of how package
> manglers work. You can't just pretend that categories there for
> exactly this.

I see your point. Resolving ambiguity is certainly needed and
categories are prettier than most distributions approach like prefixing
the package name with "python-".

However, it still seems that besides resolving ambiguity categories are
in part also used to provide information better expressed with tags,
like the genre of a game.

jcallen was kind enough to provide a script that finds ambiguous
package names and prints them with the categories they are in [1]_ and
the output for portage tree [2]_, which supports my suspicion that
there indeed are no ambiguities in game names. Maybe more cases like
this can be found.

.. [1] http://bpaste.net/show/VuEHVqLlLgsfsdL71tuz/
.. [2] http://bpaste.net/show/195029/

---
Jan Matějka        | Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2498 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> 
> Object or forever hold your peace.

Honestly, I don't think metadata.xml is a good place for it. While I
like the consistency with general use of that file, I feel like it's
going to make the application of tags more cumbersome, more noisy
and make it harder to maintain consistency.

As I see it, tags are not the same kind of package property
as the description or package name. As I see it, current metadata.xml
properties are somehow constant. They are usually set
by the maintainer, do not change often and are strictly related only to
the package.

Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package
somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.
I expect that people other than maintainers will be adding tags to
packages (and changing them), and that people will invent new tags
and apply them to more packages.

So, first of all, your solution would mean that every commit adding
a new tag or changing one of the tags would modify the package
metadata.xml. This means a Manifest update and a ChangeLog entry (please
don't get into more rules for ChangeLogs now), and this means it will be
harder to find actually useful entries there.

So we make tag updates harder, and increase time and size of rsync.

Secondly, since tags for every package will be held in different files,
people will need dedicated tools to collect tags from all those files
and add matching tags to their own packages. Long story short, we're
going to have many 'duplicate' tags that will require even more commits
with ChangeLog entries and Manifest updates.

Worse than that, your GLEP doesn't even have any basic rules for naming
tags -- like what language form to use and, say, which character to use
instead of space. This sounds like the sort of things that's going to
make it even harder to get some consistency, especially if some
developers are going to follow someone else committing earlier and some
will follow their own rules.

I'd honestly prefer that -- if we should really keep tags in the tree
-- to do that with a single 'metadata/tags' file or some kind of
hierarchy there. Keep them outside the package directory -- bind
packages to tags, rather than tags to packages. Keep all the commits
in a single place without altering the ebuild work flow.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Michał Górny:
> Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
> napisał(a):
> 
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
>> 
>> Object or forever hold your peace.
> 
> 
> I'd honestly prefer that -- if we should really keep tags in the
> tree -- to do that with a single 'metadata/tags' file or some kind
> of hierarchy there. Keep them outside the package directory --
> bind packages to tags, rather than tags to packages. Keep all the
> commits in a single place without altering the ebuild work flow.
> 

That sounds better. That way it is also easier to get some
consistency. E.g. tags can be discussed... but adding packages to tags
is up to the maintainers.

The GLEP should maybe cover a basic set of tags. Then projects like
games, science etc could add their sets as well which may be a bit
more specific... instead of random maintainers adding random tags.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Q5/K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/03/2014 22:08, hasufell wrote:
> Michał Górny:
>> Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27 Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
>> napisał(a):
> 
>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
>>>
>>> Object or forever hold your peace.
> 
> 
>> I'd honestly prefer that -- if we should really keep tags in the
>> tree -- to do that with a single 'metadata/tags' file or some kind
>> of hierarchy there. Keep them outside the package directory --
>> bind packages to tags, rather than tags to packages. Keep all the
>> commits in a single place without altering the ebuild work flow.
> 
> 
> That sounds better. That way it is also easier to get some
> consistency. E.g. tags can be discussed... but adding packages to tags
> is up to the maintainers.
> 
> The GLEP should maybe cover a basic set of tags. Then projects like
> games, science etc could add their sets as well which may be a bit
> more specific... instead of random maintainers adding random tags.


Regular user/sysadmin chipping in:

This topic seems a lot like a solution seeking a problem to solve, or
alternatively a dev is looking for an easy way to describe stuff. Not
that there's anything wrong with that, but the proposal as written is
way too vague to be useful.

Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined attributes,
and the thing they are applied to can have one, two or more of these
attributes or sometimes even none. Music and movie genres are an
excellent example - there are only so many of them and for the most part
one can tell whether a tag really is a genre or not.

Nothing resembling such limits are proposed in this GLEP, there's not
even a recommendation of what the tags will describe or how everything
will be tagged equally. What happens if someone zealously over-tags all
of gnome and the same thing doesn't happen for kde? Does kde just not
show up in tag searches anymore?

So this just seems like a nice-to-have that hasn't been properly thought
through. The main stated use of it is for packages that logically belong
to more than one category. So instead of a general catch all, do
whatever you want mechanism, let's rather solve that exact problem by
for example adding a specific field to metadata eg "supplementary
categories". Pick those that apply from a clearly defined list and store
the data in a clearly defined place.

Such a thing can be made more generic, by making it a clear mechanism to
describe extra metadata and the things to be described go through a
defined process first before making it into the list. this concept is
not present in the GLEP as currently written.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Tom Wijsman]

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:47:22 +0200
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined attributes,
> and the thing they are applied to can have one, two or more of these
> attributes or sometimes even none. Music and movie genres are an
> excellent example - there are only so many of them and for the most
> part one can tell whether a tag really is a genre or not.

There are more ways to search for a music or a movie than a genre:

What mood is it in? What are key elements of its plot or lyrics?
Where does it take place? For which audience is it meant? Which praises
has it received? What kind of style is it made in? What is it based on?
What is the attitude of it? What looks or effects does it have? Is it
appropriate for children? Does it contain explicit things?

Let's do this for movies. I'm looking for a ...

... serial killer (key element) that is scary (mood)?
    Carrie, Halloween, Saw, Scream, ...

... musical (genre) that makes one feel good (mood)?
    Aaja Nachle, Frozen, Grease, The Sound of Music, ...

... good versus evil (plot) based on comics (based on)?
    Batman, Sin City, Superman, The Avengers, ...

... goofy (attitude) hero (key element) where nothing goes right (plot)?
    Due Date, Faulty Towers, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Mr Bean, ...

These are results from an actual movie recommendation site; similarly,
the same exists for music too, where you can for example look for a
female american singer-songwriter singing catchy contemporary country.

Getting back to Gentoo; when I would look for some package, I want it to
be a lightweight, do audio recordings, organize these audio recordings
and do effects on these audio recordings. So, I'll be looking for tags
like "lightweight, audio-recording, file-organization, sound-effects";
if that's to broad, I can take two of them and test some of that.

Thinking about the different types of things to search for; I'm
thinking about ...

... what the characteristics of the software are
    (light/heavy, new/old, extensible/modular/nonstandard, ...),

... what the software can do (record audio, organize files, ...),

... what category (browser, development, DAW software, utility, ...),

... what kind of interface the software has to me (CLI, GUI, ...),

... what interconnectivity the software has (internet, bluetooth, ...),

... and so on ...

We could make a list of types (some already mentioned above) and a list
of possible tags for that type to shape the tag system somewhat.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Alan McKinnon]

On 24/03/2014 02:43, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:47:22 +0200
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined attributes,
>> and the thing they are applied to can have one, two or more of these
>> attributes or sometimes even none. Music and movie genres are an
>> excellent example - there are only so many of them and for the most
>> part one can tell whether a tag really is a genre or not.
> 
> There are more ways to search for a music or a movie than a genre:

Genre was just one example of tag usage for illustration. Doesn't mean
there aren't other equally good or valid examples.

> 
> What mood is it in? What are key elements of its plot or lyrics?
> Where does it take place? For which audience is it meant? Which praises
> has it received? What kind of style is it made in? What is it based on?
> What is the attitude of it? What looks or effects does it have? Is it
> appropriate for children? Does it contain explicit things?
> 
> Let's do this for movies. I'm looking for a ...
> 
> ... serial killer (key element) that is scary (mood)?
>     Carrie, Halloween, Saw, Scream, ...
> 
> ... musical (genre) that makes one feel good (mood)?
>     Aaja Nachle, Frozen, Grease, The Sound of Music, ...
> 
> ... good versus evil (plot) based on comics (based on)?
>     Batman, Sin City, Superman, The Avengers, ...
> 
> ... goofy (attitude) hero (key element) where nothing goes right (plot)?
>     Due Date, Faulty Towers, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Mr Bean, ...
> 
> These are results from an actual movie recommendation site; similarly,
> the same exists for music too, where you can for example look for a
> female american singer-songwriter singing catchy contemporary country.
> 
> Getting back to Gentoo; when I would look for some package, I want it to
> be a lightweight, do audio recordings, organize these audio recordings
> and do effects on these audio recordings. So, I'll be looking for tags
> like "lightweight, audio-recording, file-organization, sound-effects";
> if that's to broad, I can take two of them and test some of that.
> 
> Thinking about the different types of things to search for; I'm
> thinking about ...
> 
> ... what the characteristics of the software are
>     (light/heavy, new/old, extensible/modular/nonstandard, ...),
> 
> ... what the software can do (record audio, organize files, ...),
> 
> ... what category (browser, development, DAW software, utility, ...),
> 
> ... what kind of interface the software has to me (CLI, GUI, ...),
> 
> ... what interconnectivity the software has (internet, bluetooth, ...),
> 
> ... and so on ...
> 
> We could make a list of types (some already mentioned above) and a list
> of possible tags for that type to shape the tag system somewhat.

Have you considered just how much heavy lifting that is? Who is going to
compile the list of tags? Who is going to approve/disapprove tagable
attributes and the tags themselves? How will you resolve disagreements
people have?

What about the case of a package maintainer that simply can't be
bothered doing tags at all?

I'm not against tagging per se, they can be useful. But they do have to
be strictly controlled otherwise things get out of hand very quickly.
Every case I've seen of software that uses a freeform tagging mechanism
fails almost instantly as it becomes very inconsistent. I have one of
these apps in a corporate setting right now, have you any idea how many
ways people can come up with to tag the concept of "cloud"? I have tags
in there where someone translated the word "cloud" to a different
language! It sounded like a good idea at the time to them....

All in all, tagging is a huge amount of work and the odds of failure are
high. People need to be aware of this reality.

Wyatt Epp's post at 03:25 expresses very nicely in a more formal
language what I'm saying.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Tom Wijsman]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:32:40 +0200
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24/03/2014 02:43, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:47:22 +0200
> > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Tags work best when they describe narrow, clearly defined
> >> attributes, and the thing they are applied to can have one, two or
> >> more of these attributes or sometimes even none. Music and movie
> >> genres are an excellent example - there are only so many of them
> >> and for the most part one can tell whether a tag really is a genre
> >> or not.
> > 
> > There are more ways to search for a music or a movie than a genre:
> 
> Genre was just one example of tag usage for illustration. Doesn't mean
> there aren't other equally good or valid examples.

+1 Ah, in that case, what I've said backs up your thought. \o/
 
> > We could make a list of types (some already mentioned above) and a
> > list of possible tags for that type to shape the tag system
> > somewhat.
> 
> Have you considered just how much heavy lifting that is? Who is going
> to compile the list of tags?

+1 Yes, it's why I've stated before this should be crowd sourced.

> Who is going to approve/disapprove tagable attributes and the tags
> themselves?

Approval by default (with a quick skim over it) where we disapprove
what's not appropriate once we spot it could work. The "tagging rules"
will make themselves here. Those whom are interested could do it; that
is, I'd expect Alec to help out a bit, maybe I do too, maybe others?

> How will you resolve disagreements people have?

Discussion and/or votes.

> What about the case of a package maintainer that simply can't be
> bothered doing tags at all?

+1 [see crowd sourced idea]

> I'm not against tagging per se, they can be useful.

+1, same thought; it's nice to have, but it needs to be good to work.

> But they do have to be strictly controlled otherwise things get out
> of hand very quickly. Every case I've seen of software that uses a
> freeform tagging mechanism fails almost instantly as it becomes very
> inconsistent. I have one of these apps in a corporate setting right
> now, have you any idea how many ways people can come up with to tag
> the concept of "cloud"? I have tags in there where someone translated
> the word "cloud" to a different language! It sounded like a good idea
> at the time to them....
> 
> All in all, tagging is a huge amount of work and the odds of failure
> are high. People need to be aware of this reality.

+1 As can be seen that it can be made to work with things like movie
and music recommendation; it indeed took a while till they got at that
point, doing the work right avoids us to spend too much time on this.

> Wyatt Epp's post at 03:25 expresses very nicely in a more formal
> language what I'm saying.

+1

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jan Matejka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:32:40 +0200
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Who is going to approve/disapprove tagable attributes and the tags
> themselves? How will you resolve disagreements people have?

Sounds like a job for QA

> 
> What about the case of a package maintainer that simply can't be
> bothered doing tags at all?
> 
> I'm not against tagging per se, they can be useful. But they do have
> to be strictly controlled otherwise things get out of hand very
> quickly. Every case I've seen of software that uses a freeform
> tagging mechanism fails almost instantly as it becomes very
> inconsistent. I have one of these apps in a corporate setting right
> now, have you any idea how many ways people can come up with to tag
> the concept of "cloud"?

Some of these could probably be detected by meeting a treshold in
Levenshtein distance (or some variant of) and making a suggestion to
consider found alternative before doing the commit

- --
Jan Matějka        | Gentoo Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMS9uAAoJEIN+7RD5ejah5bIH/i6dERPVS2i/rd76HQRHjynr
w7C4N5OQi+cN339f2/JusPwxrfBrUiN7ulsgWACMPz4s8/ZA9yrsRRnqvC2P8bnR
25n94z0vUZa3K5V3MIuDugfKa6nwVY9gZHZj6BP8KNnl84ETasxpG5lR3XTqs0az
4pJG18rbwtk22+7q38hXQv9/vRfAZH3Lx5ilG1+F0+I39miXW6ylsS37ovkdrQ97
rUvNasT+5GcB6jd3tXDQuOJs8UgGuBNgTjzZfrk5Y+6+Dqj2oL5ERRONOS6UN5RB
TYGw9KI1Rj7pRWE1gIi/fhoXbugj0DZArRC8fA3D2NEyYFIStopjI0hI3bXljFs=
=Z9+y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Joshua Kinard]

On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-03-22, o godz. 15:33:27
> Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
>>
>> Object or forever hold your peace.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think metadata.xml is a good place for it. While I
> like the consistency with general use of that file, I feel like it's
> going to make the application of tags more cumbersome, more noisy
> and make it harder to maintain consistency.
> 
> As I see it, tags are not the same kind of package property
> as the description or package name. As I see it, current metadata.xml
> properties are somehow constant. They are usually set
> by the maintainer, do not change often and are strictly related only to
> the package.

IMHO, metadata.xml is actually the best place to describe a package with
tags, but I am not so sure it's the best place to "define" a tag.  I guess
if we automate the indexing of tags, much like how use.desc.local is
generated from metadata.xml, then that might eliminate some of the
maintenance overhead.

The only way tags are going to work well is to keep the management of them
as automated as possible.  They should only be involved in searches for
packages, and nothing else.  E.g., hypothetical emerge command might be:
emerge -T mail,client, which will show me all packages with the tag of
'mail' and 'client' (I didn't check emerge to see if -T already has a
purpose, btw).

And I think we should limit the number of tags allowed per package to a
reasonable number.  Maybe five tags maximum?  StackOverflow is one example
where they restrict questions to five tags.  In addition, SO tries to
suggest to you already-existing tags so that you reuse them instead of
creating new ones all the time.  Repoman could be extended to issue a
warning when metadata.xml contains previously undefined tags and optionally
display a match of similarly-named, existing tags (if only to catch
misspellings, 'mial' or 'cleint' instead of 'mail' and 'client').


> Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package
> somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.
> I expect that people other than maintainers will be adding tags to
> packages (and changing them), and that people will invent new tags
> and apply them to more packages.
> 
> So, first of all, your solution would mean that every commit adding
> a new tag or changing one of the tags would modify the package
> metadata.xml. This means a Manifest update and a ChangeLog entry (please
> don't get into more rules for ChangeLogs now), and this means it will be
> harder to find actually useful entries there.
> 
> So we make tag updates harder, and increase time and size of rsync.

Instead of individual <tag> lines in metadata.xml for each tag, why not a
single <tags> line that contains a comma-delimited list of up to five tags,
whitespace optional?  That should help reduce the "fluff" of the tree by
adding this feature.

E.g.,

<tags>one,two,three,four,five</tags>

vs.

<tag>one</tag>
<tag>two</tag>
<tag>three</tag>
<tag>four</tag>
<tag>five</tag>

(36 bytes vs. 82 bytes)


> Secondly, since tags for every package will be held in different files,
> people will need dedicated tools to collect tags from all those files
> and add matching tags to their own packages. Long story short, we're
> going to have many 'duplicate' tags that will require even more commits
> with ChangeLog entries and Manifest updates.

If we automate the generation of a master tag index file, like
use.desc.local, this can be avoided.  emerge can simply go rummage through
the master index for matching tag entries instead of going through the
entire tree.  Because if we wanted to sift through the entire tree, grep
would be a far better method (compiled C and probably better text-matching
algorithms than emerge).


> Worse than that, your GLEP doesn't even have any basic rules for naming
> tags -- like what language form to use and, say, which character to use
> instead of space. This sounds like the sort of things that's going to
> make it even harder to get some consistency, especially if some
> developers are going to follow someone else committing earlier and some
> will follow their own rules.

Easy: ASCII, alphanumeric only, must start with a letter, lowercase, no
spaces.  A lot of problems are avoided if we keep tags to one-word
descriptors only.  E.g., for mail clients, they would carry both 'mail' and
'client' as two of their five tags.  For kmail, a third tag would be 'kde'
and Evolution would have 'gnome' instead.


> I'd honestly prefer that -- if we should really keep tags in the tree
> -- to do that with a single 'metadata/tags' file or some kind of
> hierarchy there. Keep them outside the package directory -- bind
> packages to tags, rather than tags to packages. Keep all the commits
> in a single place without altering the ebuild work flow.

While I definitely like the idea of a single, master file, I feel this could
run away pretty quickly as it's continuously updated.  For example, adding a
new package, a dev has to now remember to add the new package's relevant
tags to this file, and remove its entry when that package is removed from
the tree.  By auto-generating this file from metadata.xml contents, tag
management is more evenly distributed to individual package maintainers, who
just have to remember to add the relevant entries to metadata.xml for their
package's tags to get indexed, and when a package is removed, its tags will
also be removed.

I'd also suggest that 'all' be considered a default, global tag for all
packages, it be a reserved tag internal to emerge and other package
managers, and not count against the number of allowed tags (meaning that
technically, a package is allow five tags + 'all').

As for default tags when a package does not define any, the package category
gets split at the hyphen and becomes two independent tags.  This is
overridden when at least one tag is defined in metadata.xml.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3896 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43
Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package
> > somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.
> > I expect that people other than maintainers will be adding tags to
> > packages (and changing them), and that people will invent new tags
> > and apply them to more packages.
> > 
> > So, first of all, your solution would mean that every commit adding
> > a new tag or changing one of the tags would modify the package
> > metadata.xml. This means a Manifest update and a ChangeLog entry (please
> > don't get into more rules for ChangeLogs now), and this means it will be
> > harder to find actually useful entries there.
> > 
> > So we make tag updates harder, and increase time and size of rsync.
> 
> Instead of individual <tag> lines in metadata.xml for each tag, why not a
> single <tags> line that contains a comma-delimited list of up to five tags,
> whitespace optional?  That should help reduce the "fluff" of the tree by
> adding this feature.
> 
> E.g.,
> 
> <tags>one,two,three,four,five</tags>

Either use XML, or don't use XML. Don't make this some kind of ugly
mixture of XML with non-XML.

So:

  <tags>
    <tag>one</tag>
    <tag>two</tag>
  </tags>

if we're really going for this. But I guess our DTD doesn't allow easy
definition of single <tags/> with no forced position.

> > Secondly, since tags for every package will be held in different files,
> > people will need dedicated tools to collect tags from all those files
> > and add matching tags to their own packages. Long story short, we're
> > going to have many 'duplicate' tags that will require even more commits
> > with ChangeLog entries and Manifest updates.
> 
> If we automate the generation of a master tag index file, like
> use.desc.local, this can be avoided.  emerge can simply go rummage through
> the master index for matching tag entries instead of going through the
> entire tree.  Because if we wanted to sift through the entire tree, grep
> would be a far better method (compiled C and probably better text-matching
> algorithms than emerge).

And this goes pretty much backwards to what we were aiming at. We
should finally kill use.desc.local, not get inspired by the redundancy.

> > Worse than that, your GLEP doesn't even have any basic rules for naming
> > tags -- like what language form to use and, say, which character to use
> > instead of space. This sounds like the sort of things that's going to
> > make it even harder to get some consistency, especially if some
> > developers are going to follow someone else committing earlier and some
> > will follow their own rules.
> 
> Easy: ASCII, alphanumeric only, must start with a letter, lowercase, no
> spaces.  A lot of problems are avoided if we keep tags to one-word
> descriptors only.  E.g., for mail clients, they would carry both 'mail' and
> 'client' as two of their five tags.  For kmail, a third tag would be 'kde'
> and Evolution would have 'gnome' instead.

I'm pretty sure you will finally hit something that goes with two
words. Protocol name or something.

> I'd also suggest that 'all' be considered a default, global tag for all
> packages, it be a reserved tag internal to emerge and other package
> managers, and not count against the number of allowed tags (meaning that
> technically, a package is allow five tags + 'all').
> 
> As for default tags when a package does not define any, the package category
> gets split at the hyphen and becomes two independent tags.  This is
> overridden when at least one tag is defined in metadata.xml.

Will this have a real benefit? Sounds like unnecessary confusion for
a minor gain to me.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Joshua Kinard]

On 03/23/2014 17:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43
> Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 
>> On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package
>>> somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.
>>> I expect that people other than maintainers will be adding tags to
>>> packages (and changing them), and that people will invent new tags
>>> and apply them to more packages.
>>>
>>> So, first of all, your solution would mean that every commit adding
>>> a new tag or changing one of the tags would modify the package
>>> metadata.xml. This means a Manifest update and a ChangeLog entry (please
>>> don't get into more rules for ChangeLogs now), and this means it will be
>>> harder to find actually useful entries there.
>>>
>>> So we make tag updates harder, and increase time and size of rsync.
>>
>> Instead of individual <tag> lines in metadata.xml for each tag, why not a
>> single <tags> line that contains a comma-delimited list of up to five tags,
>> whitespace optional?  That should help reduce the "fluff" of the tree by
>> adding this feature.
>>
>> E.g.,
>>
>> <tags>one,two,three,four,five</tags>
> 
> Either use XML, or don't use XML. Don't make this some kind of ugly
> mixture of XML with non-XML.
> 
> So:
> 
>   <tags>
>     <tag>one</tag>
>     <tag>two</tag>
>   </tags>
> 
> if we're really going for this. But I guess our DTD doesn't allow easy
> definition of single <tags/> with no forced position.

TBH, I don't like the use of XML at all.  Never have and never will.  I am a
big fan of INI-style definitions (i.e., like Samba's config).  XML just
leads to a lot of unneeded fluff in what should be a really small file,
which is why I was proposing a single <tags> element instead of multiple
<tag> elements.

E.g., instead for local USE of this:

<use>
<flag name='foo'>FOO</flag>
<flag name='bar'>BAR</flag>
<flag name='baz'>BAZ</flag>
</use>

(96 bytes)

This would be better:

[local use]
foo = "FOO"
bar = "BAR"
baz = "BAZ"

(47 bytes)

Not a complicated example, but would be >50% reduction in size.  But, I
digress...


>>> Secondly, since tags for every package will be held in different files,
>>> people will need dedicated tools to collect tags from all those files
>>> and add matching tags to their own packages. Long story short, we're
>>> going to have many 'duplicate' tags that will require even more commits
>>> with ChangeLog entries and Manifest updates.
>>
>> If we automate the generation of a master tag index file, like
>> use.desc.local, this can be avoided.  emerge can simply go rummage through
>> the master index for matching tag entries instead of going through the
>> entire tree.  Because if we wanted to sift through the entire tree, grep
>> would be a far better method (compiled C and probably better text-matching
>> algorithms than emerge).
> 
> And this goes pretty much backwards to what we were aiming at. We
> should finally kill use.desc.local, not get inspired by the redundancy.

And what replaces it?  What differentiates a global USE flag that has
purpose across multiple packages (like 'ipv6') against a flag that only
exists for a single package?

I'll agree that USE flags have definitely gotten out of control, and the
trend now seems to be moving sharply away from defining a global USE
definition in make.conf instead to per-package USE flags in
/etc/portage/package.use.  Which, while offering more granular control, can
be mind-numbingly annoying at times.

The automated generation of use.local.desc definitely made maintenance of
some things easier.  We've gotta index USE flags some how, and separating
them into global and local categories still makes sense to me.  But, I'm
probably just going senile...


>>> Worse than that, your GLEP doesn't even have any basic rules for naming
>>> tags -- like what language form to use and, say, which character to use
>>> instead of space. This sounds like the sort of things that's going to
>>> make it even harder to get some consistency, especially if some
>>> developers are going to follow someone else committing earlier and some
>>> will follow their own rules.
>>
>> Easy: ASCII, alphanumeric only, must start with a letter, lowercase, no
>> spaces.  A lot of problems are avoided if we keep tags to one-word
>> descriptors only.  E.g., for mail clients, they would carry both 'mail' and
>> 'client' as two of their five tags.  For kmail, a third tag would be 'kde'
>> and Evolution would have 'gnome' instead.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you will finally hit something that goes with two
> words. Protocol name or something.

Perhaps, but we can fight that battle when we get there.  starting off with
one-word tags keeps things simple for now and that'll make it easier to
determine whether this experiment actually pans out or not.


>> I'd also suggest that 'all' be considered a default, global tag for all
>> packages, it be a reserved tag internal to emerge and other package
>> managers, and not count against the number of allowed tags (meaning that
>> technically, a package is allow five tags + 'all').
>>
>> As for default tags when a package does not define any, the package category
>> gets split at the hyphen and becomes two independent tags.  This is
>> overridden when at least one tag is defined in metadata.xml.
> 
> Will this have a real benefit? Sounds like unnecessary confusion for
> a minor gain to me.

Which?  The internal 'all' tag or the use of existing category names as a
default set of tags for packages that don't have any tags defined?

The 'all' thing is probably unnecessary, as the same effect can be done with
wildcarding or some other programming trick.  The latter is just a way to
avoid having to handle the lack of tags.  Because if this is implemented,
it's going to take years for most of the packages in the tree to get tags
assigned to them.  By having a default set of tags to link most packages to,
it makes finding them via a tag search easy.  E.g., even if a particular
package in dev-python lacks tags, you can still find it by searching for the
tag "python".

Granted, a tag of "dev" offers no value (dev-python -> 'dev','python'), but
if you were looking for a web browser versus a web server, having default
tags of 'www','client' or 'www','servers' helps for packages in www-client
and www-servers.


Tags aside, wasn't there a proposal long ago to re-categorize the entire
tree because someone felt that the double-atom naming mechanism for
categories (atom1-atom2) wasn't flexible nor descriptive enough?  The entire
Portage tree idea derives from Ports, and it's really ballooned over the
years, while a modern-day Ports tree in /usr/ports is still pretty small and
self-contained.  I've always wondered is we allowed portage to have one
additional level of nesting if that'd help any (i.e., games-* -> games/*).
It really seems like this is what tags is attempting to solve, so maybe that
problem needs to be revisited instead.


-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6060 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 17:40:20
Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On 03/23/2014 17:05, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43
> > Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> > 
> >> On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package
> >>> somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.
> >>> I expect that people other than maintainers will be adding tags to
> >>> packages (and changing them), and that people will invent new tags
> >>> and apply them to more packages.
> >>>
> >>> So, first of all, your solution would mean that every commit adding
> >>> a new tag or changing one of the tags would modify the package
> >>> metadata.xml. This means a Manifest update and a ChangeLog entry (please
> >>> don't get into more rules for ChangeLogs now), and this means it will be
> >>> harder to find actually useful entries there.
> >>>
> >>> So we make tag updates harder, and increase time and size of rsync.
> >>
> >> Instead of individual <tag> lines in metadata.xml for each tag, why not a
> >> single <tags> line that contains a comma-delimited list of up to five tags,
> >> whitespace optional?  That should help reduce the "fluff" of the tree by
> >> adding this feature.
> >>
> >> E.g.,
> >>
> >> <tags>one,two,three,four,five</tags>
> > 
> > Either use XML, or don't use XML. Don't make this some kind of ugly
> > mixture of XML with non-XML.
> > 
> > So:
> > 
> >   <tags>
> >     <tag>one</tag>
> >     <tag>two</tag>
> >   </tags>
> > 
> > if we're really going for this. But I guess our DTD doesn't allow easy
> > definition of single <tags/> with no forced position.
> 
> TBH, I don't like the use of XML at all.  Never have and never will.  I am a
> big fan of INI-style definitions (i.e., like Samba's config).  XML just
> leads to a lot of unneeded fluff in what should be a really small file,
> which is why I was proposing a single <tags> element instead of multiple
> <tag> elements.

metadata.xml is XML at the moment, so you are supposed to obey its
rules, whether you like them or not. if you want to replace it with
something else, feel free to try. But don't make a shitsoup mixin out
of it.

> >>> Secondly, since tags for every package will be held in different files,
> >>> people will need dedicated tools to collect tags from all those files
> >>> and add matching tags to their own packages. Long story short, we're
> >>> going to have many 'duplicate' tags that will require even more commits
> >>> with ChangeLog entries and Manifest updates.
> >>
> >> If we automate the generation of a master tag index file, like
> >> use.desc.local, this can be avoided.  emerge can simply go rummage through
> >> the master index for matching tag entries instead of going through the
> >> entire tree.  Because if we wanted to sift through the entire tree, grep
> >> would be a far better method (compiled C and probably better text-matching
> >> algorithms than emerge).
> > 
> > And this goes pretty much backwards to what we were aiming at. We
> > should finally kill use.desc.local, not get inspired by the redundancy.
> 
> And what replaces it?  What differentiates a global USE flag that has
> purpose across multiple packages (like 'ipv6') against a flag that only
> exists for a single package?

Applications are supposed to read metadata.xml for local flags. That's
all about it. Having an extra index file doesn't really make sense
there.

> >>> Worse than that, your GLEP doesn't even have any basic rules for naming
> >>> tags -- like what language form to use and, say, which character to use
> >>> instead of space. This sounds like the sort of things that's going to
> >>> make it even harder to get some consistency, especially if some
> >>> developers are going to follow someone else committing earlier and some
> >>> will follow their own rules.
> >>
> >> Easy: ASCII, alphanumeric only, must start with a letter, lowercase, no
> >> spaces.  A lot of problems are avoided if we keep tags to one-word
> >> descriptors only.  E.g., for mail clients, they would carry both 'mail' and
> >> 'client' as two of their five tags.  For kmail, a third tag would be 'kde'
> >> and Evolution would have 'gnome' instead.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure you will finally hit something that goes with two
> > words. Protocol name or something.
> 
> Perhaps, but we can fight that battle when we get there.  starting off with
> one-word tags keeps things simple for now and that'll make it easier to
> determine whether this experiment actually pans out or not.

If you introduce arbitrary limitations, people will either find a way
around them (which means getting even worse mess) or omit some tags.
Either way, tags become less helpful.

> >> I'd also suggest that 'all' be considered a default, global tag for all
> >> packages, it be a reserved tag internal to emerge and other package
> >> managers, and not count against the number of allowed tags (meaning that
> >> technically, a package is allow five tags + 'all').
> >>
> >> As for default tags when a package does not define any, the package category
> >> gets split at the hyphen and becomes two independent tags.  This is
> >> overridden when at least one tag is defined in metadata.xml.
> > 
> > Will this have a real benefit? Sounds like unnecessary confusion for
> > a minor gain to me.
> 
> Which?  The internal 'all' tag or the use of existing category names as a
> default set of tags for packages that don't have any tags defined?

The 'all' tag sounds like something that would have no value.

The automagic tags sound like a way to confuse people -- yesterday it
had this tag, now I wanted to add a new one and the old tag
disappeared! Not to mention sometimes the categories don't give really
useful tags. Tags are not replacing categories, so no point in trying
to bind the two together.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 966 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Joshua Kinard]

On 03/23/2014 17:51, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 17:40:20
> Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> 
>> On 03/23/2014 17:05, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Dnia 2014-03-23, o godz. 16:27:43
>>> Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
>>>
>>>> On 03/23/2014 15:44, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>> Tags, on the other hand, are more 'live'. They place the package
>>>>> somewhere in the 'global' tag hierarchy that can change over time.
>>>>> I expect that people other than maintainers will be adding tags to
>>>>> packages (and changing them), and that people will invent new tags
>>>>> and apply them to more packages.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, first of all, your solution would mean that every commit adding
>>>>> a new tag or changing one of the tags would modify the package
>>>>> metadata.xml. This means a Manifest update and a ChangeLog entry (please
>>>>> don't get into more rules for ChangeLogs now), and this means it will be
>>>>> harder to find actually useful entries there.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we make tag updates harder, and increase time and size of rsync.
>>>>
>>>> Instead of individual <tag> lines in metadata.xml for each tag, why not a
>>>> single <tags> line that contains a comma-delimited list of up to five tags,
>>>> whitespace optional?  That should help reduce the "fluff" of the tree by
>>>> adding this feature.
>>>>
>>>> E.g.,
>>>>
>>>> <tags>one,two,three,four,five</tags>
>>>
>>> Either use XML, or don't use XML. Don't make this some kind of ugly
>>> mixture of XML with non-XML.
>>>
>>> So:
>>>
>>>   <tags>
>>>     <tag>one</tag>
>>>     <tag>two</tag>
>>>   </tags>
>>>
>>> if we're really going for this. But I guess our DTD doesn't allow easy
>>> definition of single <tags/> with no forced position.
>>
>> TBH, I don't like the use of XML at all.  Never have and never will.  I am a
>> big fan of INI-style definitions (i.e., like Samba's config).  XML just
>> leads to a lot of unneeded fluff in what should be a really small file,
>> which is why I was proposing a single <tags> element instead of multiple
>> <tag> elements.
> 
> metadata.xml is XML at the moment, so you are supposed to obey its
> rules, whether you like them or not. if you want to replace it with
> something else, feel free to try. But don't make a shitsoup mixin out
> of it.

I'm not proposing to change it now...bit too late for that.  But if I ever
come across a TARDIS on eBay, well...

That said, Is XML that specific that every single atom has to be wrapped by
an individual tag?  A comma-separated list of values in its own XML tag is
prohibited by the spec?  I don't use XML often (if at all), so I am not
familiar with its intrinsics.


>>>>> Secondly, since tags for every package will be held in different files,
>>>>> people will need dedicated tools to collect tags from all those files
>>>>> and add matching tags to their own packages. Long story short, we're
>>>>> going to have many 'duplicate' tags that will require even more commits
>>>>> with ChangeLog entries and Manifest updates.
>>>>
>>>> If we automate the generation of a master tag index file, like
>>>> use.desc.local, this can be avoided.  emerge can simply go rummage through
>>>> the master index for matching tag entries instead of going through the
>>>> entire tree.  Because if we wanted to sift through the entire tree, grep
>>>> would be a far better method (compiled C and probably better text-matching
>>>> algorithms than emerge).
>>>
>>> And this goes pretty much backwards to what we were aiming at. We
>>> should finally kill use.desc.local, not get inspired by the redundancy.
>>
>> And what replaces it?  What differentiates a global USE flag that has
>> purpose across multiple packages (like 'ipv6') against a flag that only
>> exists for a single package?
> 
> Applications are supposed to read metadata.xml for local flags. That's
> all about it. Having an extra index file doesn't really make sense
> there.

But they don't currently, do they?  As far as I know, most everything parses
the use.local.desc file.  Wouldn't having portage apps read/parse every
package's metadata.xml file introduce a lot of disk I/O to seek out those
files across the entire tree?  That would seem like a bigger step backwards
if so.


>>>>> Worse than that, your GLEP doesn't even have any basic rules for naming
>>>>> tags -- like what language form to use and, say, which character to use
>>>>> instead of space. This sounds like the sort of things that's going to
>>>>> make it even harder to get some consistency, especially if some
>>>>> developers are going to follow someone else committing earlier and some
>>>>> will follow their own rules.
>>>>
>>>> Easy: ASCII, alphanumeric only, must start with a letter, lowercase, no
>>>> spaces.  A lot of problems are avoided if we keep tags to one-word
>>>> descriptors only.  E.g., for mail clients, they would carry both 'mail' and
>>>> 'client' as two of their five tags.  For kmail, a third tag would be 'kde'
>>>> and Evolution would have 'gnome' instead.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you will finally hit something that goes with two
>>> words. Protocol name or something.
>>
>> Perhaps, but we can fight that battle when we get there.  starting off with
>> one-word tags keeps things simple for now and that'll make it easier to
>> determine whether this experiment actually pans out or not.
> 
> If you introduce arbitrary limitations, people will either find a way
> around them (which means getting even worse mess) or omit some tags.
> Either way, tags become less helpful.

Everything trends towards greater entropy, whether we like it or not.
Portage started with the basic idea of Ports, but it's grown way beyond that
over the years.  USE flags were supposed to be simple switches for
controlling compile-time functionality, emerge used to be the only package
manager, and Gentoo used to only support the Linux kernel and sysvinit scripts.

Whatever implementation of tags is adopted, if any, will eventually grow
beyond its original design parameters.  If tags are not adopted, something
else will probably get proposed and adopted down the road that will outgrow
its design parameters.  The question is, are tags the best we can do *now*,
or do we wait for some better idea to appear down the road and then go with
that instead?


>>>> I'd also suggest that 'all' be considered a default, global tag for all
>>>> packages, it be a reserved tag internal to emerge and other package
>>>> managers, and not count against the number of allowed tags (meaning that
>>>> technically, a package is allow five tags + 'all').
>>>>
>>>> As for default tags when a package does not define any, the package category
>>>> gets split at the hyphen and becomes two independent tags.  This is
>>>> overridden when at least one tag is defined in metadata.xml.
>>>
>>> Will this have a real benefit? Sounds like unnecessary confusion for
>>> a minor gain to me.
>>
>> Which?  The internal 'all' tag or the use of existing category names as a
>> default set of tags for packages that don't have any tags defined?
> 
> The 'all' tag sounds like something that would have no value.

Okay, let's ignore that then.  I'm just brainstorming -- not every idea has
worth or merit.


> The automagic tags sound like a way to confuse people -- yesterday it
> had this tag, now I wanted to add a new one and the old tag
> disappeared! Not to mention sometimes the categories don't give really
> useful tags. Tags are not replacing categories, so no point in trying
> to bind the two together.

I am not suggesting that tags replace categories.  Categories were the
original way to group packages (again, deriving from how Ports does it), so
when no tags are defined for a package, they offer a somewhat-suitable
fill-in.  That's not binding the two in any direct way, it's just offering a
default/fallback set of tags until a package maintainer updates metadata.xml
to add actual tag definitions.

Sample python pseudocode:

if not package.tags:
    package.tags = package.category.split('-')

If you have a better idea, I am definitely all ears.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1138 bytes --]

On 24 March 2014 11:54, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:

> That said, Is XML that specific that every single atom has to be wrapped by
> an individual tag?  A comma-separated list of values in its own XML tag is
> prohibited by the spec?  I don't use XML often (if at all), so I am not
> familiar with its intrinsics.
>


By nesting CSV inside XML, you've now got 2 formats to deal with instead of
1.

In pure XML, you can get a properly decoded array of tag elements with a
simple XPath query:

          //tag

But with CSV-in-a-tag you have to extract the tag and subsequently parse it.

So you're hand implementing a parser to parse parts of XML that already
convey data without needing to hand-parse.

Which is more effort for everyone who touches the file, not less.

Add to that automated ways to update the tags ( again, having to implement
a custom serialiser in addition to the custom parser ) and its just not
worth the tiny amount of savings.

Because really, if space efficiency was #1 priority, we'd not be using XML
at all, let alone XML with pesky whitespace indentation that consumes
needless bytes. =)

-- 
Kent

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1866 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Joshua Kinard]

On 03/23/2014 19:18, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 24 March 2014 11:54, Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> That said, Is XML that specific that every single atom has to be wrapped by
>> an individual tag?  A comma-separated list of values in its own XML tag is
>> prohibited by the spec?  I don't use XML often (if at all), so I am not
>> familiar with its intrinsics.
>>
> 
> 
> By nesting CSV inside XML, you've now got 2 formats to deal with instead of
> 1.
> 
> In pure XML, you can get a properly decoded array of tag elements with a
> simple XPath query:
> 
>           //tag
> 
> But with CSV-in-a-tag you have to extract the tag and subsequently parse it.

I am probably thinking from a Python perspective then.  All you have to do
is grab the value of <tags> and then split it on the comma.  No custom
parsing needed, since that function is built into Python.  I guess this
might not be the case with other languages, though, and it really just adds
to my distaste of XML as a format for metadata.xml in the first place.


> So you're hand implementing a parser to parse parts of XML that already
> convey data without needing to hand-parse.
> 
> Which is more effort for everyone who touches the file, not less.
> 
> Add to that automated ways to update the tags ( again, having to implement
> a custom serialiser in addition to the custom parser ) and its just not
> worth the tiny amount of savings.
> 
> Because really, if space efficiency was #1 priority, we'd not be using XML
> at all, let alone XML with pesky whitespace indentation that consumes
> needless bytes. =)

I guess I need to start looking for used TARDISes then...

Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
Joshua Kinard
Gentoo/MIPS
kumba@gentoo.org
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28

"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us.  And
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between."

--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jan Matejka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:40:20 -0400
Joshua Kinard <kumba@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> TBH, I don't like the use of XML at all. 

No, we don't need to go one level (format) deeper.

> The 'all' thing is probably unnecessary

What problem does having 'all' tag solve? Seems pretty useless to me.

> Granted, a tag of "dev" offers no value (dev-python ->
> 'dev','python'), but if you were looking for a web browser versus a
> web server, having default tags of 'www','client' or 'www','servers'
> helps for packages in www-client and www-servers.

This might be helpful but rather as one-time, initial, hand-picked
generation on case-by-case (by the category) basis.

> I've always wondered is we allowed portage to have one additional
> level of nesting if that'd help any (i.e., games-* -> games/*).

Squashing games-*/ to just games/ and defining genre by tags. Seems
pretty doable, I like this.

- --
Jan Matějka        | Gentoo Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMTZeAAoJEIN+7RD5ejah85gIAItDtxuEntu2nhb4uvltKHfu
dpnT0KePuAZKwV8H59jRx7AovfMo9nTjqs88Sgw6v9NbbKNxRmW3PPWmuJUnLniU
eG31vMsUJ1CgXxNLWaXaYZRi1QTYnJqJM5LDnfFsh4mj9Dk7t1/XCA6rKcICO3qQ
sqEDaSAyOYLBsTGPOyC2trrZNAsLEu2oLImzECXNHa6tNMJt75BJdGfKzFDTGBtF
XiG/qi2IV7ClYxVZP4W1LwN+SVUmLiEDUyMeP6FRgVdEmZcdlQGLm6kBiYD0A/2F
xeWHPoQpgkPRZuLRNv0vvvatO+A2KpXY1rs0s3BYb0xk3MDEGwE+X1ZrcDRVsIg=
=5YXb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[hasufell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Jan Matejka:
>> I've always wondered is we allowed portage to have one
>> additional level of nesting if that'd help any (i.e., games-* ->
>> games/*).
> 
> Squashing games-*/ to just games/ and defining genre by tags.
> Seems pretty doable, I like this.
> 
> 

Sounds like a huge waste of time. And have fun doing all the pkgmoves
in CVS.


However, I think we can agree that the GLEP needs some more work. But
it seems the majority is interested, so don't give up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=kAA7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Wyatt Epp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6388 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
>
Ack, this had to happen on a weekend when I wasn't paying attention!
And you beat me to it, too-- I was working on something in this vein,
but wasn't quite satisfied with the design yet.  Oh well.  You're sort
of on the right track, but there are some very important aspects
missing that will make the whole thing collapse with their absence.
(This thread has been in various places, but I frankly don't feel like
finding the relevant snippets, so you get a text dump.  Sorry about
that.)

The first thing missing is aliasing (most proposals for this sort of
system miss this at first; don't feel too bad).  There are many, many,
many cases where you want more than one single tag query to resolve to
the same canonical tag.  The ability to define aliases that take care
of this automatically is critical.  In my notes on this, I had a
global alias file, and users can have an /etc/portage/tag.alias.  It's
just text -- nothing special -- that defines antecedent = consequent
relationships.  This means the antecedent is _replaced_ by the
consequent.  As a quick example, cpp = c++ This also allows for simple
changes to the canonical name.

Second, implication is important for decreasing maintenance burden.
An implication is an antecedent -> consequent relationship where the
consequent is automatically added if the antecedent is present.
Unlike aliasing, the consequent doesn't _replace_ the antecedent.  An
example of this is acpi -> power_management, because acpi is a
distinct aspect of power management, and has value on its own.  Over
time, this significantly lowers the maintenance burden of an expanding
vocabulary and tree.

With that in place, I want to make something clear: consistency in the
vocabulary is absolutely critical.  I cannot overemphasise how
important this is.  Adding tags without any sort of discipline leads
to an unmaintainable vocabulary, which makes the whole thing as
worthless as some people think.  So there needs some sort of basic
canonical list of tags with their descriptions, and yes people should
be expected to be rigourous in how they approach this.  I've attached
a rough draft of descriptions and aliases that I pulled together a
while ago (analogous to /etc/portage/profiles/use.desc).

This is where aliasing becomes essential, because it allows us to
guarantee some amount of consistency.  We're only human and can't be
expected to cover every situation, but there's plenty of low-hanging
fruit in this area.  e.g.:
app = application                       # Alias abbreviation to full tag
editors = editor                        # Make plural -> singular
aliases standard where sensible.
                                        # Rule of thumb 1: "This is a(n)..."
admin = administration                  # Rule of thumb 2: "This is
a(n)... ...tool"
backup = back-up                        # Can use hyphenated forms
benchmark = benchmarking                # As with admin, only gerund form.
cdr = disk_authoring                    # Spaces replaced with
underscores at word boundaries
i18n = internationalisation             # Will need to come to a
consensus on the s/z spelling and make some aliases.
cpp = c++                               # Valid tags should be
restricted to basic ASCII minus spaces (replaced with underscores) for
our own sanity
.net = dotnet                           # This could go either way,
but the leading period makes my Unix blood distrust it.
gamedev = game_development              # "games" becomes ambiguous
with "game" so prefer a more-clear form.
lang = language = programming_language  # Not to be confused with the
i18n language support. Avoid confusion with clear naming
version_control = source_control = vcs  # Well known abbreviations can
be used in place of their expansions
mail = email                            # No sense not being clear
mail_server = mail_transfer_agent = mta # Multiple aliases to the same
thing are acceptable
nntp = {{newsreader usenet}}            # The braced notation denotes
an intersection of two tags.  Need to decide if this sort of alias is
legal.  I'm thinking no, honestly.
sys = system                            # BUT it's in conflict with
@system!  Don't do that.
www = web                               # These are all things that
deal with the web specifically.
apache = apache_module                  # classes of packages that
have their own categories is exactly why this is a good idea.

The above is just an excerpt copied directly from my notes on
aliasing.  Some other stuff:
- Query syntax and semantics can be addressed in greater detail later.
 There's some nice sugar to be had here.
- Likewise, tools.  Something along the lines of quse and equery would
be handy in support of this.
- Aliases for reasonable search terms are not a bad idea.
- I've stated at various points in the past, but categories are
already tags after a fashion.  They're not very good ones, but they're
a good place to start.  Moreover, current metapackages and sets are
somewhat like tags in their own right.
- USEs might also be considered as a source of inspiration. That said,
I don't think anything like conditional tags based on the profile's
selected USE is a good idea.  Don't make this more complex than it is.
- Succinctly, strongly hierarchical tags are a mistake and will cause
you more grief than you can imagine.  Ontologically, aim for "mostly
flat".
- Limiting the number of tags allowed on a package is a horrible idea;
seriously, don't even consider that-- you would absolutely regret it.
The whole point of this is to allow useful semantic description.
- Crowdsourcing is something that _can_ work, but needs to be
moderated in some way.  It could work well to deputise some trusted
users for this task, similar to arch testing, and they have mandate to
do responsible tag gardening.
- A good maxim for additions is "tag what you see".  If it provides a
library with a lua bindings, then that's probably a good thing to tag.
- Maintainers can be awfully possessive of their packages, but on this
subject I think it would benefit them to unclench a little.  Most
additions should be relatively obvious.
- Per-$PV tagging is honestly probably not necessary.  Sticking it in
metadata.xml seems reasonable for now.

Regards,
Wyatt

[-- Attachment #2: alias.desc --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 3597 bytes --]

# Copyright 2014 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 or greater

admin = administration # Rule of thumb 2: "This is a(n)... ...tool" # Maybe implies application?
apache = apache_module # classes of packages that have their own categories is exactly why this is a good idea.
app = application # Alias abbreviation to full tag
apps = application
arch = archiving
archive = archiving
auth = authentication
backup = back-up # Can use hyphenated forms
benchmark = benchmarking # Multiple aliases to the same thing
benchmarks = benchmarking
cdr = disk_authoring # Spaces replaced with underscores at word boundaries # Not the same as image mangling apps
client = browser # client is a weird way of referring to them.  I'd call the rest of them utilities
cluster = clustering
core = base # Because they're the same thing, pretty much.  The other things are modules; why does this category even exist?
cpp = c++ # Valid tags should be restricted to basic ASCII minus spaces (replaced with underscores)
crypt = cryptography
db = database
devel = development # Lot of compilers; should get their own tag
dialup = dial-up # Not STRICTLY necessary...
dicts = dictionary
doc = documentation
domain_name_system = dns
drivers = driver # plural > singular
editors = editor # Make plural -> singular aliases standard where sensible.  Rule of thumb 1: "This is a(n)..." # Maybe > application?
emulation = emulator
first-person_shooter = fps
fonts = font
fs = filesystem = file_system
gamedev = game_development # "games" becomes ambiguous with "game" so prefer a more-clear form.
gfx = graphics
i18n = internationalisation # Will need to come to a consensus on the s/z spelling and make some aliases.
lang = language = programming_language # Not to be confused with the i18n language support
libs = libraries # Wait, should this be left plural?  Should standardise this
mail = email #no sense not being clear
mail_server = mail_transfer_agent = mta # Also, {{mail server}}
misc = miscellaneous
mobilephone = mobile_phone 
multi-user_dungeon = mud
.net = dotnet # This could go either way, but the leading period hides it in Unix which is inconvenient.
news = newsreader = news_reader = feed_reader # somewhat
nntp = {{newsreader usenet}} #pretty much.  And inn is a server. nzb might be a separate tag
peer-to-peer = p2p
php5 = php # We only have >=php:5 in the tree.  Is this necessary to keep separate?
plugins = plugin
power = power_management  # acpi implies this.  Also apm, for the two people who care
print = printing
proto = protocol
radio: Tools and applications for working with streaming or FM radio #split off Ham radio to ham_radio = amateur_radio
role_playing_game = rpg
sci = science = scientific
sec = security # LOTS more than just selinux stuff.  That should get its own tag.  Also gradm needs this.
servers = server # plural > singular
shells = shell
sound = audio
sys = system # Conflict with @system... What's the theme here anyhow? system_administration?
television = tv
terms = terminal
texlive = tex = latex # dev-texlive mostly seems redundant because of the naming scheme.
themes = theme # Well, I GUESS it's roughly accurate, but still a weird category.
util = utility
version_control = source_control = vcs # well known abbreviations can be used in place of their expansions
visualization = visualisation # Commonwealth
voice_over_ip = voip
wifi = wireless
wm = window_manager
www = web # These are all things that deal with the web specifically.
x = xorg = x11 # people commonly just call it X.  Accommodate this incredibly common case.

[-- Attachment #3: tags.desc --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 10747 bytes --]

# Copyright 2014 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 or greater

# Keep them sorted
accessibility: Related to handicapped users (e.g. blind, deaf, etc)
action_game: Action games (e.g. Descent)
ada: Related to the Ada programming language
administration: Related to system administration
analyzer: Network diagnostic, statistics, and routing software
antivirus: Virus and malware detection/isolation
apache_module: Plugins for the Apache HTTP server
application: Packages that provide a userspace application
arcade_game: Arcade games (e.g. Tyrian)
archiving: Compression and decompression tools and libraries
astronomy: Packages that deal with mapping and exploring the cosmos and the bodies that make it up
audio: Tools and applications for playing, making, or working with recorded audio
authentication: Packages dealing with user credentials and setting up valid sessions
back-up: For processing, making, and restoring backups
base_applications: The main DE package set, including all project-specific required packages #See what's in @kdebase-startkde as an example of what goes here
benchmarking: For testing performance of subsytems
biology: Packages that deal with exploring and understanding the physical makeup of living things
block: Tools for managing partitions and storage hardware
board_game: Board games (e.g. Chess)
boot: Tools for booting a system from the BIOS
browser: Applications which access WWW pages and display them for the user
calculators: Applications for assisting with the grunt work of lower-level mathematics # implies mathematics?
chemistry: Pacakges that deal with exploring and understanding the composition of non-living molecules
client: Class of applications that authenticates with a server
clustering: Tools for creating and maintaining interconnected cooperative parallel compute environments.
communication: Who knows? #Umbrella for network text communication? May end up useful
c++: Related to the C++ programming language.
cryptography: Related to encryption and decryption
database: Database implementations and their tool ecosystem
desktop_applications: General GUI applications for an ordinary desktop system. #gnome_terminal, nautilus, etc.
development: Related to software development #Ambiguous
dial-up: Of or related to telephony modems
dictionary: Lexicon-related things
disk_authoring: For handling CD/DVD/BD composition and writing
dns: Server software and tools related to accessing or exposing the global Domain Name System
documentation: Stuff that tells you how other stuff works
dotnet: Related to the .NET/Mono programming language.
driver: Any package that installs software to allow correct interaction with a specific device or family of devices
editor: Applications for editing text in files
electronics: Packages that deal with electronic layout, design, and testing
emacs: Related to the emacs editor
email: Applications and libraries that handle, read, or process mail
embedded: Packages for embedded and low-spec hardware.
emulation_tools: configuration tools and frontends for emulators. #Not to be confused with emulators themselves
emulator: Virtualisation of other systems and their hardware
extras: Secondary and tertiary applications of a desktop environment #KDE already has this as a category, but not {{gnome}}.  Better name may be prudent.
feed_reader: Application for aggregating news feeds
file_system: Packages related to filesystem creation and maintenance # A fuse tag should probably be a thing
filter: Tools and libraries related to filtering incoming or outgoing data # email isn't the only thing that filters, ya? Generalise and recombine!
firewall: Tools and applications related to restricting unauthorised network access from internal and external threats
font: Packages of computer typefaces # tags for truetype and bitmap would be helpful
forensics: Data obfuscation, data recovery, and malware detection
fps: First-person shooters such as Unreal and Quake and their mods
freebsd: Packages for the FreeBSD userland # Is there a compelling reason to not just shorten it to bsd?
ftp: Tools and applications related to the venerable File Transfer Protocol
game: Any package that installs a game executable that can be played. #Umbrella, ambiguous
game_config: Utilities for configuration of games. #joypad/stick config, keybinders, minimisers, xgame and friends.  Most of the old games-util
gamee_development: Engines and tools for game authoring
game_engine: Software libraries that support the creation of games
game_pad: Packages for dealing with game pads and games that support them
game_server: Dedicated game server applications for centralised multiplayer
game_utilities: Miscellaneous support applications for games.  #The real catchall.  Weird stuff like the flightgear atlas 
geosciences: Packages that deal with GPS and other data sets related to the systemic understanding of our planet
gnome: Packages related to the GNOME Desktop Environment # Desktop environments will have some common tags.
gnustep: Packages related to the GNUstep desktop environment
gpe: Packages related to GPE, the handheld computer DE
graphics: Tools and applications for handling still image data
haskell: Related to the Haskell programming language
im: Related to instant messagers and their protocols
input: Packages dealing with input #related to the above.  Reasonable search terms.
internationalisation: Language input method and region support packages for partially or fully nonlatin systems.
irc: Related to Internet Relay Chat
java: Related to the Java programming language
joystick: Packages for dealing with joysticks and games that support them
kde: The K Desktop Environment with extra potassium
kernel: Various kernel source tarballs with different patchsets 
kids_game: Games suitable for young children
laptop: Laptop and power-management tools and libraries
latex: Packages supporting the open professional-grade typesetting engine, LaTeX
libraries: Packages that install system-wide software libraries
lisp: Related to the lisp programming language
lua: Related to the Lua programming language
lxde: The Lightweight X Desktop Environment
markup: Related to markup languages #It could have been {{ml}}, but that could conflict with the Standard ML family?  Do we care?
mathematics: Packages that deal with higher-level mathematics and related research
media: Tools, applications, and libraries for the reading, writing, and manipulation of audio and visual objects. #SOOOO MANY THINGS! But useful if you want to specify certain options for all media (like USEs)
miscellaneous: The hell is all this, then?
mobile_phone: Tools to run on or in support of your mobile
mta: Message Transfer Agent-- simply, an email server
mud: Multi-user dungeons and other networked text game esoterica
multiplayer: Games that support more than one player #Couldn't have this before. #imply game
nds: LDAP tools and applications #What is this actully?
network: Package related to or has network functionality
office: Office-productivity applications
p2p: Packages that deal with file sharing protocols and networks
pda: Utilities for running on or with a personal digital assistant.
perl: Related to the Perl programming language
php5 = php # We only have >=php:5 in the tree.  Is this necessary to keep separate?
php: Related to the PHP nonprogramming language
physics: Packages for simulating physical spaces and examining the interactions of things in them
plugin: Packages that install helper applications that integrate directly into another application
policy: Pacakges that install security policy files
portage: Gentoo package management tools
power_management: Tools for monitoring and managing system power consumption
printing: Packaes dealing with printers and their drivers
process: Cleanup later # Two main categories: things that monitor (*top; ps) and things that run other things (*cron; scehduling)
protocol: Packages which install headers for various communication methods
proxy: Tools and applications for running or using various sorts of intermediary servers
puzzle_game: Puzzle games (e.g. World of Goo)
python: Related to the python programming language
radio: Tools and applications for working with streaming or FM radio #split off Ham radio to ham_radio = amateur_radio
roguelike: Games where you die a lot.
rox: The lighweight Rox Desktop Environment # DE
rpg: Role-playing Games (e.g. Neverwinter Nights)
ruby: Related to the Ruby programming language
scheme: Related to the Scheme programming languge
scientific: Umbrella for all scientific, research, and instrumentation packages
security: Packages that deal with system security
server: Applications which expose content to the network at large; essential for running web sites
shell: Command line console implementations
simulation: Applications that attempt to realistically model things like planes and cars #Not usually "games" as far as many are concerned #Needs cleaned of the economic things
sports_game: Replicating sports in digital form #Motorsports should be in racing, though.
strategy_game: Games involving management of economies, militaries, and diplomacy. (e.g. Total Annihilation) #Very broad. Possible siblings include rts, 4x, real-time_tactics, turn-based, et al)
system_core: Very basic, very Unixy system tools. 
tcl: Related to the Tool Command Language
terminal: Applications which allow a user to interact with the system through a shell
text: Applications for viewing or manipulating text in some fashon # Needs serious cleanup
theme: Theme engines, icon sets, colour schemes, and cursors for X
tk: Related to the tk GUI toolkit
toy: Small software amusements and diversions like fortune
tv: Media centre applications and other tools for working with TV tuners
usenet: Packages that deal with Usenet
utility: Random crap #Needs a lot of work
vcs: Revision control systems and their supporting tools and libraries
video: Tools and applications for working with moving images (a.k.a. video)
vim: Related to the Vim editor
virtual: "Fake" packages that pull in one of any number of options depending on the user's configuration  # This is what it is.
visualisation: Tools and applications for formatting and displaying data for consumption by humans
voip: Packages dealing with real-time speech conversations over networks
web: Packages that deal with the World Wide Web
window_manager: Helper applications which define and enforce rules for window focus and activation in X11
wireless: Tools, applications, and drivers for dealing with 802.11 wifi
x11: Tools and applications related to configuration and running of an X server
xemacs: Related to the X variant of the emacs editor
xfce: The XFCE Desktop Environment

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC GLEP 1005: Package Tags

[Jan Matejka]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 15:33:27 -0700
Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:

> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Package_Tags
> 
> Object or forever hold your peace.
> 
> Or argue for 100 posts, either way.
> 
> -A

It might be worthwile to prototype this functionality as an
external service.

1. It should be easier to crowdsource the tags definitions, assignments
   and QA and therefore helps to build consistent database faster and
   easier.

2. decouples tagging from maintaining a package, therefore makes more
   community driven and prevents "THAT'S MY PACKAGE, DON'T TOUCH IT YOU
   SCHMUCK" type of quarrel.

3. Classic prototyping benefit - might identify problematic areas for
   implementation.


The downside is the implementation might be more time consuming
depending on architecture. Mostly due to 1. I guess but that could be
handled by using git and pull requests for crowdsource and then the
implementation should be basicly no different from using portage
itself, besides using different VCS.

- --
Jan Matějka        | Developer
https://gentoo.org | Gentoo Linux
GPG: A33E F5BC A9F6 DAFD 2021  6FB6 3EBF D45B EEB6 CA8B
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTMTicAAoJEIN+7RD5ejahIlsH/1UmMa1P+QBEZ/HpfOPX1d4Z
S0nYho8vinPQVenOXMY/0KVvh4bzhmrTZWm4itLVB/5taI88m5fzQbvYSNlEn+Nn
zRTcmyuze+3mmDf3++mfzzjmByYLiYJwCdhNF7HH4V04Ph/aEQbjO++9EL37bW/J
uCYs8b0Vtn97utW2mJcUa7Wbgluo6jhCDHW8yGuZW4JfCo6bRQfqqlxGGGufIXK9
N8FX01Kbt2HFqgwdK7uZIfn0Gh9xGkIL2Jk2WCFzUHjZgJTy0UuPGeUSCOsTt7wg
CcETDWrzscuydtdhZaFmtZ3Xs7eQ7I98nwEdlkSdgbsfQFYQlPvomCGZyGehtTo=
=ykWo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----