From eb079f667c099ad10506b9cf7392df59bee15b3e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Anderson Torres Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 16:45:54 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] Section for code implementation --- rfcs/0146-meta-categories.md | 13 +++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/rfcs/0146-meta-categories.md b/rfcs/0146-meta-categories.md index c608e84..15a2962 100755 --- a/rfcs/0146-meta-categories.md +++ b/rfcs/0146-meta-categories.md @@ -95,6 +95,9 @@ the above mess: new `meta` attributes. # Detailed design [design]: #detailed-design +## Code Implementation +[code-implementation]: #code-implementation + A new attribute, `meta.categories`, will be included for every Nix expression living inside Nixpkgs. @@ -258,9 +261,15 @@ found are listed below (linked at [references section](#references)): # Unresolved questions [unresolved]: #unresolved-questions -Still unsolved is what data structure is better suited to represent a category. +There are some still unsolved issues: -- For now we stick to a set `{ name, description }`. +- What data structure is suitable to represent a category? + + - For now we stick to the most natural: a set `{ name, description }`. + +- Should we have a set of primary, "most important" categories with mandatory + status, in the sense each package should set at least one of them? + - The answer is most certainly positive. # Future work [future]: #future-work