Donnie Berkholz wrote: > Alin Nastac wrote: > > >Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > >>Why is language a good way to sort these? I think they should be sorted > >>by function. > > > >prolly 'cause C++ libraries cannot be used unless your program is > >written in C++. > >on the contrary, C libs could be used in whatever language you want > >(theoretically at least). > > > OK, maybe it's useful for developers. And particularly in the case of > libraries, my point may not be as relevant. But in the interest of being > consistent, it should be the same throughout. > > But as a user, if I'm looking for a database, I'd look at dev-db. I > wouldn't expect it to be sitting in dev-ruby or something because it's > written in Ruby. As a user, I don't particularly care what language > something is in. For example, darcs is in Haskell. So what? I can still > emerge it. > As you said, libraries found in dev-lib does not concern our users at all. Usually these are frameworks which various developers uses to build their apps. Since devs are much more interested by them, I would say it is best to classify from dev perspective.
I don't have anything against current classification as dev-libs but it seems that it is a bit overcrowded. Maybe we should use another criteria for classification, but what would that be? It would certainly be a disaster if we choose to put lib-foo in dev-db just because mysql is build on top of it! It would overload categories that means something to users with dozens of obscure libs, without any relevance for average gentooer. IMO libs should have their categories, separate by popular packages.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
