| 1 |
В Пнд, 14.07.2003, в 15:24, Todd Berman пишет: |
| 2 |
> Just in general, app-cvs is a 'BAD' idea. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> It defeats the *entire* purpose of what is going on in general. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In general, baring notable exceptions (gaim-cvs, private live-cvs pull |
| 7 |
> ebuilds) I dont think live-cvs ebuilds are a good idea at all, and |
| 8 |
> surely not a sound reason to add a category just for their use. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
Also as a related issue packages can be categorized in many ways and |
| 11 |
often packages would belong to more that one category. To be consistent |
| 12 |
we should use the same "categorization scheme" for every package. An |
| 13 |
example: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
nurbs++ is a C++ library, and it's in media-libs, I'm totally fine with |
| 16 |
that. Then we have libxmlpp, which is a C++ wrapper to the C libxml (I |
| 17 |
think), in dev-cpp. Given that I find nurbs++ in media-libs, I'd expect |
| 18 |
to find libxmlpp in dev-libs. We don't put nurbs++ in dev-cpp just |
| 19 |
because it's a C++ library. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Now the difference between nurbs++ and libxmlpp is, that libxmlpp is a |
| 22 |
C++ wrapper, and nurbs++ is not, it's "natively" C++. But in my opinion |
| 23 |
that doesn't justify putting it in a "C++ libraries" directory. After |
| 24 |
all I don't think "Hmm, I'm writing a C++ application, let's look in |
| 25 |
dev-cpp what library I could use", but rather "Hmm, I'm writing a |
| 26 |
multimedia application, let's look in media-libs if there's already a |
| 27 |
library doing half of my work". |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Markus Bertheau. |
| 31 |
Berlin, Berlin. |
| 32 |
Germany. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives