ports/www is too full

[Lowell Gilbert]

Robert Huff <roberthuff at rcn.com> writes:

> Mark Linimon writes:
> 
> >  There is also the school of thought that we ought to identify
> >  what problem we are trying to solve, and if it's merely a
> >  'search/browse' type of problem, then we should fix our
> >  search/browse interfaces and leave the directory layout alone.
> >  
> >  Unfortunately, this school of thought seems to have only one
> >  adherent, which is myself :-)
> 
> 	Coung mr in.

Well, I agree too, but I wouldn't try to *stop* somebody from
redefining the directory structure, either.  I haven't spoken 
up because I think it looks like a bikeshed.

> 	It occurs we may be looking at multiple "problems", which may
> or may mot have compatible solutions.

Quite true.

>                                        Someone mentioned finding a
> (popular) port with a known name;

If you know the exact name, "make search name=" does a good job right now.

>                                   I often want to look at all
> programs which do <foo>, where FOO is far more detailed than the
> existing categories support.

That's a hard problem, because it can get into semantics.  I don't
really see any new approaches to the problem that will do better than
"make search key="