FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-24-2008, 09:22 AM
Sami Liedes
 
Default Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

Hi,

While browsing packages in aptitude, I ran into some packages that, to
me, seem to be in the wrong section (or at least it's not obvious why
they are in the section they are). Section: python seems to be
especially bad, I wonder if the rationale was just "it was written in
Python". These all are in the python section and I can't determine
from their description why they are there:

------------------------------------------------------------
bzr-gtk - provides graphical interfaces to Bazaar (bzr) version control
calendarserver - Apple's Calendar Server
clearsilver-dev - headers and static library for clearsilver
epylog - New logs analyzer and parser
fusil - Fuzzing program to test applications
phenny - extensible IRC bot written in Python
planet - Flexible feed aggregator
planet-venus - aggregate feed generator
pootle - Web-based translation and translation management tool
pyslide - Tiny but powerful program to make animated presentations
synce-kpm - KDE device manager for Windows Mobile devices
system-config-printer - graphical interface to configure the printing system
trac-bzr - Bazaar version control (bzr) backend for Trac
trac-mercurial - Mercurial version control backend for Trac
trac-spamfilter - Spam-prevention plugin for Trac
wapiti - Web application vulnerability scanner
wmi-client - DCOM/WMI client implementation
------------------------------------------------------------

And in Section: perl:

------------------------------------------------------------
jirc - an IRC to Jabber bridge bot
mapivi - Photo viewer and organizer with emphasis on IPTC fields
openguides - A web application for managing a collaboratively-written city guide
simba - next generation mirroring tool
svk - A Distributed Version Control System
websimba - web interface for simba
------------------------------------------------------------

(NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)

Well, I don't know if you agree with me that "written in Python" is a
poor reason to put a package in the python section, I couldn't find
anything about it in the New Maintainers' Guide, for example. But if
you do, perhaps a note should be added to the NMG, given how common
this seems to be.

Sami


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 05-24-2008, 03:54 PM
Steve Greenland
 
Default Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

> (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
> descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
> used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)

I mostly agree with this. The exception would be development tools and
libraries, where the implementation language can be relevant. OTOH,
those kind of tools probably should be in the relevant section.

(I sometimes look at implementation language for user apps *if* I
expect it's something I'm going to want to hack, but at that level I can
just look at the dependencies.)

For your main point, that user apps belong in a section relevant to
their function, not their implementation, agree 100%.

Steve


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 05-25-2008, 04:16 AM
Osamu Aoki
 
Default Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:54:52AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
> > descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
> > used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)
>
> I mostly agree with this. The exception would be development tools and
> libraries, where the implementation language can be relevant. OTOH,
> those kind of tools probably should be in the relevant section.
>
> (I sometimes look at implementation language for user apps *if* I
> expect it's something I'm going to want to hack, but at that level I can
> just look at the dependencies.)

True. And there is debtags which classify by implimentation language:

$ aptitude search ~Gimplemented-in:erl

> For your main point, that user apps belong in a section relevant to
> their function, not their implementation, agree 100%.

Yes.

Osamu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:26 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org