Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

2008-05-24 Thread Sami Liedes
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

Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

2008-05-24 Thread Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
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

Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

2008-05-24 Thread Hendrik Sattler
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 to

Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

2008-05-24 Thread Steve Greenland
(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 the

Re: Packages in section python/perl simply because implemented in python/perl

2008-05-24 Thread Osamu Aoki
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 with