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 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
