On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:54:52AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
> > descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
> > used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)
>
> I mostly agree
> (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
> descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
> used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)
I mostly agree with this. The exception would be development tools and
libraries, where t
Tshepang Lekhonkhobe schrieb:
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
used to implement the program? It's just not relevant t
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Sami Liedes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (NOTE: Am I the only one who thinks descriptions, especially short
> descriptions as in phenny, usually shouldn't tell what language was
> used to implement the program? It's just not relevant to the user.)
Me agrees. Looks
Hi,
While browsing packages in aptitude, I ran into some packages that, to
me, seem to be in the wrong section (or at least it's not obvious why
they are in the section they are). Section: python seems to be
especially bad, I wonder if the rationale was just "it was written in
Python". These all a
5 matches
Mail list logo
