[aur-general] packages without category

[Ofir Balas]

I think tags would be cool but really not worth the effort. Like Dan said,
descriptions are king.
On Jul 30, 2013 7:17 PM, "Daniel Micay" <danielmicay at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 30 July 2013 19:56, Rob Til Freedmen <rob.til.freedman at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> There are still >1000 packages without 'Category'
> >> - apparently not a hot topic.
> >
> > I think most of these packages are created by uploading the PKGBUILD
> > using burp or a similar AUR uploader. If the categories were to stay
> > [1], it would be good if these uploaders or AUR rejected packages
> > without a category.
> >
> > [1] I don't think the caetgories are useful in the current state,
> > because they don't represent natural grouping of existing software at
> > all (eg. should a GTK utility be considered "gnome", "x11" or
> > something else?). For this to work, tags would be in my opinion much
> > more usable – given the packages were properly tagged, anyone could
> > easily find packages such as "gtk multimedia player".
>
> I think descriptions and dependencies include the required information
> in almost every case.
>