Hi,
I would hate to drag this discussion on endlessly, so I promise this
will be my only post :).
Dominique Michel wrote:
> Le Fri, 27 Apr 2007 20:07:26 -0700,
> Josh Saddler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
>
>> Steve Dibb wrote:
>>
>>> Dominique Michel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I fully agree, theology is the worst possible name if the herd will
>>>> include
>>>> both religious and scientific softwares.
>>>>
>>> No worries, app-misc/gramps was dropped from the theology herd, and is
>>> herdless once again.
>>>
>> So what's the big problem
>> of sticking it into a herd somewhere, a herd that seems to be maintained
>> by just one person (beandog in this case)?
>>
>>
> The fact at the herd is maintained by one or more peoples have nothing to do
> with this. It is about the meaning of the words and consistency. If I put
> gramps into theology, I can put gnome into kde, mplayer into media-sound and
> grabcartoons into theology.
>
I still fail to see why this is such a big thing if one package which is
mainly used in relation to a religion is in a herd called theology. It's
not as if the world will come to a shattering halt and chaos will reign.
If for some reason the gnome herd adopted fluxbox or the KDE people
would take care of HAL, would you object because their herd names don't
fit? Even if the alternative was the packet remaining herdless, because
no other herd was interested?
It's not as if this is a giant library, where a book will be lost
forever if it's in the wrong category, or like putting ID on the science
curriculum. Herds loosely lump related packages together, don't they? I
thought they were just infrastructure, not real categories.
Regards,
Thomas
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
