Ludovic Courtès: >what about multiple-language packages? I’m thinking of >‘c+guile-guile’ and ‘c+siod+python-gimp’. the ideal categorization would be one output for each interface. so "guile" (scheme), "guile:c", "gimp" (gui), "gimp:c", "gimp:siod", "gimp:python", "emacs" (gui), "emacs:tui", "emacs:elisp" (to run "emacs -batch -eval"). e.g. guile:c and emacs:tui are pretty useless for me, so i could not install them. it's worth to focus on packages already split: "emacs" (gui+tui+elisp) and "emacs:no-gui" (tui+elisp), linux-libre, ...
c nomenclature: packages with c interface currently have nothing, "lib" (prefix or postfix), "c-", "-c", "4c" or "-headers". e.g. "readline" "libunistring" "htslib" "c-ares" "json-c" "icu4c" "mesa-headers" "linux-libre-headers". and lots of synopses with nothing, "C library for", "C library providing", "C library to", "implementation in C" or "written in C". this would be consistent with trisquel: "libreadline-dev" "libunistring-dev" "libhts-dev" "libc-ares-dev" "libjson-c-dev" "libicu-dev" "libmesa-dev" (and "libmesa") "linux-libre-image" (and "linux-libre-libc-dev" or "linux-libre-headers"). suggestions: be consistent with other languages: "c-readline" "c-unistring" "c-hts" "c-ares" "c-json" "c-icu" "c-mesa" (hide the runtime) "linux-libre" (and "linux-libre:c"; actually the system would use "linux-libre-old:c" to keep current semantics). remove this information from synopses (or standardize to all).
