On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Christopher Stone (chris.stone@xxxxxxxxx) said:
All packages should go in comps. I don't know why notting is against
this?!!? Why should my php-pear-* packages be excluded from comps for
example? Just because some newb might not want to install them does
not mean a php web developer would not use comps to install them.
It's the wrong idiom that does not scale to the size of our current
repository. If you want "Python library for doing 'foo'", any useful
package search is a far better mechanism than scrolling through a graphical
list of 650+ checkboxes.
To be fair - I'm not sure that's entirely true.
Keywords as a concept are harder than you might think for a lot of people.
Especially if they have to come up with them on their own. You ever met
someone for whom google was not useful? Those are often people who have
trouble figuring out what are good keywords on their own. However, if they
are presented with a list of common keywords they can pick out the ones
they care about. I know it's odd but I've seen it occur very commonly.
Your point about browing a bunch of checkboxes is correct, though. Which
is why I was thinking browsing trees of tags.
Maybe that doesn't work, either, though.
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
