Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)
From: Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 16:19:48 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] 87hdz2yyh7.fsf@sanosuke.troilus.org>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040111195339.GI15281@erizo.shearer.org> (Dan Shearer's message of "Mon, 12 Jan 2004 06:23:39 +1030")
References: <[🔎] 20040111195339.GI15281@erizo.shearer.org>

Dan Shearer writes:

> So what, in your opinion, are the technologies (or significant packages)
> which should be in Debian but are not? And why do you think they are
> not?

Mono.  I believe Mono packages are missing mostly for want of
attention: there are some packaging issues to work through, and no
Common Language Infrastructure/.NET policy yet.

Michael Poole

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)
  - From: Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>

References:
- Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)
  - From: Dan Shearer <dan@shearer.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Upcoming Debian multiarch support (amd64, sparc64, s390x, mips64) [affects sarge slightly]
Next by Date: Re: Upcoming Debian multiarch support (amd64, sparc64, s390x, mips64) [affects sarge slightly]
Previous by thread: Re: [debian-devel] Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)
Next by thread: Re: Top 5 things that aren't in Debian but should be :-)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread