Anyone knows what was the resolution of this?
Is Development/Libraries/Java OK or not?
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]
- 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).