Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:58:16 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@gmail.com> To: pav@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Martin Wilke <freebsd@unixfreunde.de> Subject: Re: new categorie "meta" ? Message-ID: <cb5206420605220358t15ea7ddan3c2d288f6ed679e0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1148249020.36949.10.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <20060521234850.2fd4d360@mwilke.ath.cx> <1148249020.36949.10.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/22/06, Pav Lucistnik <pav@freebsd.org> wrote: > Martin Wilke p=ED=9Ae v ne 21. 05. 2006 v 23:48 +0200: > > Hi Friends, > > > > since creating new categories comes in vogue lately I just wanted to > > ask what you think about creating a categorie called "META". Why you > > should do that is simple: There are enough ports serving as meta ports. > > These include: > > > > lang/php4-extensions > > lang/php5-extensions > > x11/xorg > > x11/gnome2 > > x11/gnome2-lite > > x11/kde3 > > x11/kde-lite > > x11-wm/xfce4 > > > > usw. > > > > That would lead to a clearer layout and improved overview of large > > applications (esp for newbies). > > No. > > Categories split ports into the groups by their usage. That's why we > have net, www, deskutils, x11-clocks; instead of large, small, plugins, > skins. Actually, a meta category might be useful, but I would expect it to contain ports related to the ports system. At least that would go along with traditional definitions of the word "meta".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420605220358t15ea7ddan3c2d288f6ed679e0>