[pacman-dev] A proposition for an enhancement - addition of category info to .PKGINFO

[Bozhidar Batsov]

Dan McGee wrote:
> On 6/19/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> 2007/6/19, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com>:
>>     
>>> For the ones who check this ML, but not the forums (since lordbad
>>> always double post :d), phrakture gave a link to this :
>>> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7132
>>>
>>> (thread is here : http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=34303 )
>>>
>>>       
>> yeah, similar ideas about categories/tags/whatever were rised during
>> SCM repo structure discussion, AUR2 brainstorming etc.
>> Nice to see the idea didn't die :-)
>> Though I'm not sure if it's worth to put categorization data into
>> packages inself.
>>     
>
> I disagree- when it deals directly with the package, why NOT include
> it in the description (PKGBUILD) of the package?
>
>   
>> Wouldn't webinterface-only categorization be enought for
>> browsing/searchig packages?
>>     
>
> We try to make most things possible from the command line- I don't
> think we should limit ourselves to a web-interface only listing of
> categories either, especially if implementing it in both places (as
> opposed to one) is trivial anyway.
>
> -Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> pacman-dev mailing list
> pacman-dev at archlinux.org
> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
>   
I totally agree with you. And this does not concern only the command 
line clients like pacman. Suppose someone tries to implement a truly 
advanced GUI front-end for pacman(like synaptic for apt). What will this 
GUI list by default if not categories. This of course is only one of the 
many benefits for the users that the inclusion of such info would 
provide. I saw Aaron's proposal in the tasks list and I think it is 
ideal. One more thing - I do not think that if category support is 
included the names of the categories should the same as in the ABS - I 
see little sense in a category named "base" for example...