[Fedora-packaging] Re: Development/Libraries/Java Group?
fnasser at redhat.com
Fri Feb 9 02:45:14 UTC 2007
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).
More information about the Fedora-packaging