From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657C6138010 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:52:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09854E0B26; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C33CE0A6D for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52E8E33BE6E for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:52:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.712, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.328, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tYaPk8Rzr5M8 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:52:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B41633DBBD for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 07:52:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UMZXg-0001PV-RQ for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:52:36 +0200 Received: from ppp118-209-187-22.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net ([118.209.187.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:52:36 +0200 Received: from kensington by ppp118-209-187-22.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 09:52:36 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Michael Palimaka Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Expanding categories' descriptions Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:52:02 +1100 Message-ID: References: <51587263.6080505@politeia.in> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp118-209-187-22.lns20.mel6.internode.on.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 In-Reply-To: <51587263.6080505@politeia.in> X-Archives-Salt: 3eb44772-c1bb-4165-8e71-3e3e7d52af82 X-Archives-Hash: d4d411ec040477bc5d051daf95d72248 On 1/04/2013 04:29, Denis M. wrote: > Hello, > > (I was redirected from gentoo-doc@ to ask this here.) > > I think it's a good idea to expand the categories' descriptions (found > in the corresponding metadata.xml files) with more accurate descriptions > of which packages are welcome to fit in which categories. > > The current descriptions are very vague and aren't probably in the best > shape to bring users' a good idea what certain category is about and > what packages are to be found there. > > This can also be an issue for (new) ebuild-writers (either > user-contributed ebuilds or just gentoo developers that are not sure0-000-p > about it either). > hat t > This is of course checked by a gentoo developer if new ebuilds are to be > submitted via the bugzilla, but I still think we should provide a better > understanding of the categories. > > If expanding the metadata.xml files does not seem a good idea, we should > at least make a little bit more comprehensive description somewhere in > the gentoo.org/doc/ or wiki.gentoo.org pages. > > What do you think about it? > > > Regards, > Denis M. (Phr33d0m) > Sounds good to me. From time to time I see even experienced developers not sure as to which category a package belongs. There is also inconsistency with packages of a certain type being spread over multiple categories. For example, packages containing "password manager" in the description currently exist in three different categories.