Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:54:13 -0500 From: Parv <parv@pair.com> To: Lars Thegler <lth@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Anton Berezin <tobez@FreeBSD.org>, Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Request for comments: port-tags Message-ID: <20051109045413.GA64842@holestein.holy.cow> In-Reply-To: <437062D6.6050001@FreeBSD.org> References: <20051107154634.GA40923@heechee.tobez.org> <43704ACA.1070708@FreeBSD.org> <437062D6.6050001@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
in message <437062D6.6050001@FreeBSD.org>, wrote Lars Thegler thusly... > > Alex Dupre wrote: > >like it very much. One thing we can add to enhance the tag > >classification is to add an optional PORTTAGS variable where we can > >define additional tags (not present in CATEGORY and COMMENT) for the > >port, so that "Maildir" could be for example associated with > >mail/dovecot. This will require additional work for maintainers, but I > >think it'll highly improve the searches. > > I suspect most (if not all) tag addition could be done within COMMENT > itself. For people browsing the portstree through other means, say, > FreshPorts, improving COMMENT makes very good sense, IMHO. When i read COMMENT, i want to know the purpose of the port. Currently, in most cases i have to read pkg-descr to get a better understanding (as COMMENT is just filler). (Yes, i know that only thing that can improve the current situation would be to file PRs to better define COMMENT.) If keywords start filling COMMENT, i think purpose of COMMENT will fail. Then again, rereading what i wrote in the above paragraph, COMMENT will server a fruitful purpose finally by containing keywords (albeit under a indirectly related variable name). - Parv --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051109045413.GA64842>