Differences between revisions 3 and 5 (spanning 2 versions)
⇤ ← Revision 3 as of 2009-03-16 03:31:39 →
Size: 1299
Editor: anonymous
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
← Revision 5 as of 2016-12-05 08:45:10 → ⇥
Size: 1599
Editor: EnricoZini
Comment: Added links to old ideas for making some debtags tags more consistent
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 9: Line 9:
 {i} See bugs against the virtual package Bug:ftp.debian.org  {i} See bugs against the virtual package [[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=ftp.debian.org|ftp.debian.org]]
Line 19: Line 19:
  * Some facets can be maintained by package maintainers for consistency, others can be crowdsourced [[https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=657725|post]] [[https://lists.debian.org/debian-dak/2009/02/msg00164.html|post]]

Discussions After Lenny : Sections

Sections their history, what they are for, what to do about them - drop them, keep them in current state, introduce more sections and or more clearly specify in policy what each section is for. Also audit the current ftp-master overrides for them .

Add / Remove sections ?

Current request include : data, education, gis, plugins, pike, gnustep, ruby and video

Describe sections in the policy

At present, the archive maintainers are responsible for defining them and the list is kept in the policy document (2.4). Note that this list is only their names. Would it make sense for the english language description to be included in policy too?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/01/msg00185.html

Dropping Sections in favor of Debtags facets (Lenny +2)

  • Who will control those tags? (ftp-masters or DDs)

    • DDs needs to be more responsible classifying post

    • Consistency is more important than perfect classification post

    • Some facets can be maintained by package maintainers for consistency, others can be crowdsourced post post