Decklin Foster writes:
>Is there a compelling reasoon to make this hierarchical? Why not just
>have a plain old list such as:
>
>text, console, xlib, xaw, motif, gtk, qt, web.
That would make it difficult to refer to "all x11 apps", whereas using
hierarchical makes it trivial. We stick more to the way UIs are
structured by describing them using a hierarchy.
>I see the categories as mainly being useful for the user sifting
>through long lists of packages. Wouldn't want to force them to be too
>specific, IMHO. What are the downfalls to this, though? Go ahead and
>shoot me down, I'm just trying to brainstorm ;-)
Being directive on allowed items may permit more consistency. OTOH it
may also provide too much administrativia and it may appear that we
are able to resolve the issues ourselves.
Maybe just specifying a core hierarchy and allowing developpers to add
to it as they see fit may be more in the "distributed development
spirit" :)
> > 2. UserInterface: A list of ways the programs in the package interact
> > with their users. Possible values are to be defined by policy,
> > examples are given at the top of this mail.
>
> Now, this is *only* with packages marked as a "Program", right? Maybe
> it should be clarified.
If it is to be named "UserInterface", probably ;)
However it may be argued that severs use a "ClientInterface" quite
similar in nature to the "UserInterface" described. A sysadmin may
appreciate some help in specifying which ClientInterfaces he accepts
or refuses for his machine(s).
Examples of ClientInterfaces would be most network protocols. As they
are already organized in a layered way, we may formalize as examples:
ip/tcp/ftp, ip/tcp/rpc, etc.
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://www.altern.org/ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
