don_smith at att.net
Sat Jan 4 10:11:46 PST 2003
Matthias Benkmann wrote:
> Let's take one concrete example from the suggested list for LFS:
> * Developing Software
> * Compiling Software
> Does this distinction make even the slightest bit of sense? Does GCC not
> belong in "Developing Software" although I sure as hell use it to do just
> that. What about Vim? A lot of people use it for nothing but software
> development. And where does make belong? I think it fits neither category.
> Categories are more confusing than helpful. If you want to add
> meta-information, use a list of keywords. One category per package simply
> does not make sense (especially for packages that contain multiple
I agree completely. I only looked at about five lines in the proposed
categorization and found two things I strongly object to. 1) the two
categories mentioned above really are one - Development Tools and 2)
zlib is most definitely not a kernel module or has anything to do with
devices or is even required.
Now that I go back, I see that Kernel/Devices/Modules/Libraries are all
lumped together. Make that three things I object to.
Anyway, my point is that I don't see how we would ever get any kind of
consensus on the categories, let alone what categories things belong to.
And how do we come up with a level of categorization that makes everyone
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev