"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> > > How about this: "plugin" - this package is or contains a 
> > > plugin to the Squeak VM which needs to be compiled for each
> > > platform individually.
> > 
> > Would this be a subcategory of "Package type"? No, not if you 
> > also allow "contains" I guess. Ok, instead of guessing - which
> > daddy do you think it should have? :-)
> 
> Good question. I dunno (this is why I tagged this as [RFC]). One could go

You don't know?! :-) Well, it happens to the best I guess. ;-)

> either way - simply flag a package as "containing" a plugin, or make up a
> separate package type for "being" a plugin. Both makes sense and I don't
> have a strong feeling either way. 
>
> Comments anyone?

Well, adding a "Package type" called "Plugin" seems pretty reasonable.
That would be "just" a clean plugin. Since they are fair targets for
future dependencies many of them will probably end up as separate
packages in the long run anyway.

We could also introduce a "misc" top category called "Package
attributes" or something equally general and nondescriptive :-) in which
we can place categories which we can't really find a good place for
elsewhere.

If there are no more comments on this that can make me think otherwise
then I will go for this solution. "Package type" is already mandatory
but "Package attributes" can't be of course. So maintainers will just
need to put that little "Contains plugin" category on their packages
themselves.
 
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran