Anyone knows what was the resolution of this?
Is Development/Libraries/Java OK or not?
Regards, Fernando
Anthony Green wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 18:24 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Back to reality, it seems to me to be imminently reasonable that Java should have its own package group because there are a quantity of packages associated with it, but to argue that Java alone deserves such treatment while other languages in the same situation don't because they're not "subsystems" seems, well, odd.
I agree. I think we should allow for Development/Libraries/[LANGUAGE] because...
- Groups are used to make browsing packages simpler
- People browsing Development/Libraries are programmers
- Programmers are typically looking for language specific libraries
So, my proposal it to let packagers extend Development/Libraries with a /[LANGUAGE] (Perl, Python, Java, C++, Lisp, etc, but not C, which can default to Development/Libraries).
AG
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 21:45 -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote:
Anyone knows what was the resolution of this?
Is Development/Libraries/Java OK or not?
You can put whatever you would like in the Group field. Its not regulated in Fedora whatsoever.
~spot
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org