[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:54:52AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
> > descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
> > used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)
> I mostly agree with this. The exception would be development tools and
> libraries, where the implementation language can be relevant. OTOH,
> those kind of tools probably should be in the relevant section.
> (I sometimes look at implementation language for user apps *if* I
> expect it's something I'm going to want to hack, but at that level I can
> just look at the dependencies.)

True.  And there is debtags which classify by implimentation language:

$ aptitude search ~Gimplemented-in::perl

> For your main point, that user apps belong in a section relevant to
> their function, not their implementation, agree 100%.



Reply to: