Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:53:45 -0500 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@csh.rit.edu> To: Anton Berezin <tobez@FreeBSD.org>, Lars Thegler <lth@FreeBSD.org>, Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request for comments: port-tags Message-ID: <20051109165345.GA68690@csh.rit.edu> In-Reply-To: <20051109142817.GG22596@heechee.tobez.org> References: <20051107154634.GA40923@heechee.tobez.org> <43704ACA.1070708@FreeBSD.org> <437062D6.6050001@FreeBSD.org> <20051109045413.GA64842@holestein.holy.cow> <20051109142817.GG22596@heechee.tobez.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 03:28:17PM +0100, Anton Berezin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:54:13PM -0500, Parv wrote: > > 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). > > I will support a TAGS field; what I cannot decide at this moment, is > whether to ignore COMMENT and pkg-descr (support for which I will add > shortly) when TAGS is present, or use TAGS as an additional tag source > only. I would think that if someone goes through the work to define a TAGS field that it would be more accurate than what your getting from COMMENT and will be getting from pkg-descr. In order to weed out any less-than-descriptive tags I would use only the TAGS field if it exists in the makefile and if it does not then use the combination of keywords from COMMENT and pkg-descr. BTW, I really like this idea - it makes searching for ports much easier. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051109165345.GA68690>