On Saturday 17 September 2005 14:01, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > On 17/9/2005 13:33:30, Christian Parpart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Saturday 17 September 2005 11:36, Kevin F. Quinn wrote: > > > On 17/9/2005 0:20:57, Mark Loeser ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > C++ herd is a good idea, especially with that number of packages. > > > > > > > I would also like to see many of them, if not all, moved to the > > > > dev-cpp category: > > > > > > Is this bit really necessary? > > > > indeed, it at least helps curious c++ devs to browse through some yet > > unknown c++ libs and he maybe finds something useful. > > If the only gain is that one group finds one search criteria a little > easier, then I think that is far from sufficient reason to re-categorise.
errr... I didn't meant "of course" == "indeed", I meant it a way of "that might make sense". sorry for the misunderstandings ;) Regards, Christian.
pgpofgnAw5U4n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
