Kevin F. Quinn wrote:
>> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the dev-cpp
> Is this bit really necessary?

The reason for me adding that bit is the metadata from dev-cpp:

The dev-cpp category contains libraries and utilities relevant to the
c++ programming language.

Now to me, that means I can find *all* relevant C++ stuff here.  If we
don't want that to be the case, maybe we should say "miscellaneous", but
why should something be in dev-libs, as compared with dev-cpp?
net-libs, I could understand, and dev-games, as those could be argued to
have a direct relation.  This is really just a matter of categorization,
and isn't as big of a concern for me as it is trying to put all of these
no-herd packages under a herd.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to