1 |
Kevin F. Quinn wrote: |
2 |
>> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp |
3 |
>>category: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Is this bit really necessary? |
7 |
|
8 |
The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp: |
9 |
|
10 |
The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the |
11 |
c++ programming language. |
12 |
|
13 |
Now to me, that means I can find *all* relevant C++ stuff here. If we |
14 |
don't want that to be the case, maybe we should say "miscellaneous", but |
15 |
why should something be in dev-libs, as compared with dev-cpp? |
16 |
net-libs, I could understand, and dev-games, as those could be argued to |
17 |
have a direct relation. This is really just a matter of categorization, |
18 |
and isn't as big of a concern for me as it is trying to put all of these |
19 |
no-herd packages under a herd. |
20 |
|
21 |
Mark |