On Saturday 17 September 2005 22:14, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 17 September 2005 02:22 pm, Mark Loeser wrote: > > Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > >> I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the > > >> dev-cpp category: > > > > > > 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. > > for generic C++ packages (STLport/boost for example), i can see them being > in the dev-cpp category ... but for packages which have specific uses > already and arent in 'generic' categories, i dont think they should be > moved -mike
if I do understand you correctly, I'd even not use dev-cpp as category, instead something that contains the word `platform` or `framework` in it, as STLport/boost/STL(libstdc++-v3,...) and others are exactly of that kind. However, we've some more no-herd'ed packages to put into this new potential c++ herd - but these are two different discussions/threads IMHO. Regards, Christian Parpart.
pgpmomqy0QfGN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
