Hello, Might be related to the subject (?) but would adding something like keywords/tags to package definitions help? On Emacs, a package definition like this can pop up:
ack is an available package. > > Status: Available from gnu -- Install > Archive: gnu > Version: 1.8 > Summary: interface to ack-like tools > Homepage: https://github.com/leoliu/ack-el > Keywords: tools processes convenience > Then searching packages via keywords can be done: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Package-Keywords.html On Slackbuilds likewise (keywords somewhere below): https://slackbuilds.org/repository/14.2/system/guix/ This could be metadata to help find related stuff so there can be a games tag for the wesnoth package. Also dunno how related, but in Common Lisp nicknames can be defined for packages. I wrote some game programming libraries bindings before that uses a longer name for the definition but a two letter nickname to make it easier to use in practice. Sincerely, Daniel Jiang On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:26 PM Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> wrote: > Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> writes: > > > TL;DR: we're missing a field like ‘DISPLAY-NAME’, and all this is > > just hacking around the bush. > > This could be a very nice idea! > > > Using this logic, I counter that these very long names unfairly > > privilege 1337 hackers who can touch-type, and hurt the average > > Jo' poking at their chiclet keyboard with a chopstick ;-) > > > > Both arguments make about as much sense IMO (and caricature > > users). I think a name like ‘the-battle-for-wesnoth’ helps > > *neither* user. > > Users who cannot touch-type will typically perform simple queries, such as: > > - battle wesnoth > - wesnoth battle > - battle > - wesnoth > > (Using Emacs-Guix.el, Helm, or the next GTK interface.) > > With "wesnoth" as a name, 3 out 4 queries won't hit a result. > > I don't think that "typing" is the issue here. At least, I wouldn't > sacrifice the _ability to search_ just to type short names. > > Also an option is to alias package names. > > > > XLong names take longer to type on the command line, and noisy to > > read in code. > > Noisy? Why? Short code filled with acronyms tends to be harder to read > then long explicit names. > > Package names are mostly used as inputs. In those longs package lists, > it's really nice to have explicit names and leave little room for > ambiguity. > > > Some hinder tab-completion. > > Why? > > > In a GUI, they still look ugly: why no spaces? Why lowercase? > > Why bother? We don't have to choose between POLA from other > > command-line package managers and providing pretty metadata for > > higher-level UIs. > > We can do both. > > Absolutely. > > -- > Pierre Neidhardt > https://ambrevar.xyz/ >
