[maemo-developers] Software categories

[From: Guillem Jover]

On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 18:00:37 +0300, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> Guillem Jover" <guillem.jover at nokia.com> writes:
> > I disagree. You'd be using tags to filter what you show. Probably
> > we'd iwant a new tag like uitoolkit::hildon, but that's not maemo
> > specific, and it's not needed to start using them with the current
> > tagged data.  You could show only packages matching a set of tags, a
> > starting point could be for example:
> >
> >   role::program && interface::x11 && \
> >   (uitoolkit::hildon || uitoolkit::gtk || uitoolkit::sdl || uitoolkit::xlib)
>
> Right, that makes a lot of sense.  But still, it is a rather indirect
> way of controlling visibility in the AM.

And I think that's a feature. One just needs to come up with an
adequate filter for your specific needs.

> What about packages like language packs that enhance the system in
> some subtle way?

In this particular case you could also show packages having the
culture::catalan tag (for example), if my system locale is ca_ES. And
you could change that dynamically depending on the locale.

> It is very important whether or not a package is shown in the AM and I
> think we should let a package declare itself visible in a very direct
> and dedicated way.

I think this is a bad idea, it encodes our (Maemo and/or Nokia) narrow
definition of end user into the packages (although the tag data can be
just supplied externally, but still). Also I'd guess 3rd party devels
would like their apps to show up on the AM, so there might be some
abusing with this kind of tags.

> What about a "audience" tag?  The default filter rule could be
>
>     audience::enduser

enduser defined in Maemo terms, or how do you come up with a general
definition that can be universally used upstream?

> or something and we could have others like audience::poweruser,
> audience::admin, audience::hacker, etc.

I don't remember exactly, but I think there was some talk about this
upstream and it was rejected. I'd have to check the archives, though.

There's already an admin:: namespace, there's also use:: and other
similar, if there's missing stuff, I'm sure upstream would be glad to
listen, and maybe we should move this discussion there?

regards,
guillem