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. 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. Mark
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
