| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Alin Nastac wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> >Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> >>Why is language a good way to sort these? I think they should be sorted |
| 8 |
> >>by function. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> >prolly 'cause C++ libraries cannot be used unless your program is |
| 12 |
> >written in C++. |
| 13 |
> >on the contrary, C libs could be used in whatever language you want |
| 14 |
> >(theoretically at least). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> OK, maybe it's useful for developers. And particularly in the case of |
| 18 |
> libraries, my point may not be as relevant. But in the interest of being |
| 19 |
> consistent, it should be the same throughout. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> But as a user, if I'm looking for a database, I'd look at dev-db. I |
| 22 |
> wouldn't expect it to be sitting in dev-ruby or something because it's |
| 23 |
> written in Ruby. As a user, I don't particularly care what language |
| 24 |
> something is in. For example, darcs is in Haskell. So what? I can still |
| 25 |
> emerge it. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
As you said, libraries found in dev-lib does not concern our users at all. |
| 28 |
Usually these are frameworks which various developers uses to build |
| 29 |
their apps. |
| 30 |
Since devs are much more interested by them, I would say it is best to |
| 31 |
classify from dev perspective. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I don't have anything against current classification as dev-libs but it |
| 34 |
seems that it is a bit overcrowded. Maybe we should use another criteria |
| 35 |
for classification, but what would that be? |
| 36 |
It would certainly be a disaster if we choose to put lib-foo in dev-db |
| 37 |
just because mysql is build on top of it! It would overload categories |
| 38 |
that means something to users with dozens of obscure libs, without any |
| 39 |
relevance for average gentooer. |
| 40 |
IMO libs should have their categories, separate by popular packages. |
Archives