Editing Task:Package categories
Warning: You are not logged in.
Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
People feel the need to create new categories, because the current list is too limited. | People feel the need to create new categories, because the current list is too limited. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * There is beauty in simplicity. Adding more categories would never solve the problem for some people. --[[User:timsamoff|timsamoff]] 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Another problem is that some categories aren't very descriptive. What applications go in to tools, support or accessories? | Another problem is that some categories aren't very descriptive. What applications go in to tools, support or accessories? | ||
| + | |||
| + | * This may be the better method, although "descriptive" is still subjective. --[[User:timsamoff|timsamoff]] 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Maemo Packaging Policy == | == Maemo Packaging Policy == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 32: | ||
* tools | * tools | ||
| - | == | + | == Proposed list for Diablo == |
This is the [http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail//maemo-developers/2008-October/035437.html final] list for Diablo: | This is the [http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail//maemo-developers/2008-October/035437.html final] list for Diablo: | ||
| Line 88: | Line 92: | ||
If the package's section starts "user/", but is not any of the above, the ''Application Manager'' forces them into an "Other" section. | If the package's section starts "user/", but is not any of the above, the ''Application Manager'' forces them into an "Other" section. | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Any more thought/discussion on "office" being changed to "productivity"? Or, has this been decided? --[[User:timsamoff|timsamoff]] 13:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | ** It's an i18n question, and so not ''really'' important at the moment (i.e. deciding if the categories are sufficient for all use cases). However, IMHO, "Productivity" is a ''more'' flawed label than ''Office'' as the tablet is a tool. All tools should increase productivity at doing '''something'''. People buy physical calendars from office supply firms, Ubuntu (and freedesktop.org) label it "Office" and it encompasses Evolution's calendar; so it works for me. --[[User:jaffa|Jaffa]] 13:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | *** Makes sense. Good argument that I can stand by. ;) --[[User:timsamoff|timsamoff]] 14:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Future additions == | == Future additions == | ||
| Line 102: | Line 110: | ||
{{quotation|Drawing a bit freely from the literature of Faceted Classification, a facet is a group of tags which describe the same quality of a package. Package Tags are organized in Facets, that represent different points of view from which to look at the package archive. For example, you could have a "Usage" facet with tags about what a program is intended to be used for, or you could have a "Media" facet with tags about what kind of information a program is able to process, a "Technology" facet about the technology a package uses, and so on. With this approach, every tag is situated in a specific context, and has a clear meaning. Also, tags from different facets shed light on packages from different points of view, giving "depth" to its categorization. Take something tagged with "Use::Chatting", "Technology::IRC", "Role::Server": it has a remarkable level of detail, and tells almost everything we need to know about what the package does. | {{quotation|Drawing a bit freely from the literature of Faceted Classification, a facet is a group of tags which describe the same quality of a package. Package Tags are organized in Facets, that represent different points of view from which to look at the package archive. For example, you could have a "Usage" facet with tags about what a program is intended to be used for, or you could have a "Media" facet with tags about what kind of information a program is able to process, a "Technology" facet about the technology a package uses, and so on. With this approach, every tag is situated in a specific context, and has a clear meaning. Also, tags from different facets shed light on packages from different points of view, giving "depth" to its categorization. Take something tagged with "Use::Chatting", "Technology::IRC", "Role::Server": it has a remarkable level of detail, and tells almost everything we need to know about what the package does. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm not sure if this will help us here. We would need to specify a lot of tags for packages. Question is: how are we going to display this in the application manager or website without being confusing --[[User:xfade|xfade]] 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | We should use Debtags to encode the information we need for Maemo (by defining tags like Maemo::Category), but we probably shouldn't try to expose all the existing Debtags in the UI. This is a slight abuse of Debtags, but better than the current abuse of Section, I think. If the abuse is too great, we can have our own fields in debian/control: Maemo-Category: --[[User:mvo|mvo]] | ||
=== Application-specific subcategories === | === Application-specific subcategories === | ||
Learn more about Contributing to the wiki.