emacs top-level category

[Juan Manuel Palacios]

On Oct 22, 2007, at 3:50 AM, Weissmann Markus wrote:

> ...and it is not because I'm a vi-user that I may remark that the  
> perl-category has over 500 ports while the editors-category  
> currently has ~40; I'd say a top-level category shouldn't be  
> introduced for every tiny new set of ports. I have no idea how many  
> emacs-ports there would be, but if they are not exceeding ~30, I'd  
> say put them in the anyway rather empty editors-category.
>
>
> -Markus


	I have to admit that I do like your point, willy-nilly categories  
for every couple of ports that make any sort of sense together is  
definitely not something we want to encourage. But it's also somewhat  
difficult to enforce, as there are already categories of that sort  
(genealogy, containing only two ports; cad, 2; iphone, 4; etc). I  
chose Perl as an example because of the name prefix thing, but it was  
a very bad example for the argument of "number of ports", I admit.  I  
believe that some categories make sense even if they don't hold those  
many ports, like iphone, but others don't, like genealogy (in this  
case simply because it's a very small category, holding many ports  
would definitely make a case for it, in my opinion).

	So maybe our parameters for creating top-level categories should be  
a different one(s), rather than plain sheer number of ports in them.  
"How likely is a user to search in a given category?", that's the  
question I would ask. I (and any emacs user, I'm sure) would  
definitely look in dports/emacs/, so that particular category makes  
sense to me, even if it has only... two to begin with ;-)

	But, again, I want to make it clear I'm not pushing this one in  
particular because I'm an emacs user, but rather because I do think  
that we need to define a set of a parameters we can use consistently  
for any category, not just emacs.

	Regards,...


-jmpp