Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 17:05:26 +0100 (MET) From: torstenb@solar.tlk.com (Torsten Blum) To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu, torstenb@tlk.com, coredump@nervosa.com, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/libwww - Imported sources Message-ID: <m0tv4fX-00021vC@solar.tlk.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960308102045.404C-100000@ginger.eng.umd.edu> from "Chuck Robey" at Mar 8, 96 10:24:43 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Chuck Robey wrote: > The point (In my opinion) ought to be, where would your average user, > trying to find such tools, be most likely to look for them? I see the > examples of autoconf, bcc, and bison; these are purely for development, I > think someone would go looking in ports/devel. For the graphics stuff, > whether of not it's a lib, they would expect to find it under graphics. > Likewise, most people looking for WWW tools are going to look into the > www section, regrdless of whether it's a library or not. Yes, but there's a difference between libwww and the graphics stuff (tiff and jpeg for example): graphics/tiff and graphics/jpeg are not just libraries. These ports also install utilities who might be what joe average user is looking for. libwww is just the library - and someone who is looking for libwww is not "joe average user". That's the point: joe average user has no usage for libwww (port dependencies don't count, that's done automatically) > This hasn't anything to do with dictionary definitions, and this isn't a > software categorization problem. This is about causing the most people > the least amount of headaches. yes, but I don't think that libwww in the www directory lowers the amount of headaches for joe average user. Yes, but there's a difference between libwww and the graphics stuff (tiff and jpeg for example): graphics/tiff and graphics/jpeg are not just libraries. These ports also install utilities who might be what joe average user is looking for. libwww is just the library - and someone who is looking for libwww is not "joe average user". That's the point: joe average user has no usage for libwww (port dependencies don't count, that's done automatically) > This hasn't anything to do with dictionary definitions, and this isn't a > software categorization problem. This is about causing the most people > the least amount of headaches. I don't think that libwww in the www directory lowers the amount of headaches for joe average user. Most people are users not programmers. They will never think about ports/devel... -tb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0tv4fX-00021vC>