Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:09:09 +0100 From: Tilman Linneweh <arved@arved.at> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net-im Makefile ports/net-im/pino Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist Message-ID: <3C8FA5EB-6E09-4663-82F7-996B469B1AD4@arved.at> In-Reply-To: <20100315162701.GA59321@FreeBSD.org> References: <201003151205.o2FC5jZI020402@repoman.freebsd.org> <20100315131007.GA30217@FreeBSD.org> <20100315133331.GM40169@bsdcrew.de> <20100315141820.GA47823@FreeBSD.org> <20100315143217.GN40169@bsdcrew.de> <20100315162701.GA59321@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 15, 2010, at 17:27 , Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>>>> Despite that I can imagine why would someone might want to put = things >>>>> like Twitter clients under `instant messengers', doesn't `www' = look a >>>>> better category for these? >>>>=20 >>>> So you want me repocopy all these ? >>>>=20 >>>> net/py-twitter A python wrapper around the Twitter API >>>> net/rubygem-rubytter A simple twitter library >>>> net/rubygem-twitter Command line twits and an API wrapper >>>> net/rubygem-twitter4r Twitter client API in pure Ruby >>>> net/twitux GNOME client for Twitter >>>> net-im/pidgin-twitter A pidgin plugin to help twitting via = pidgin >>>> net-im/qwit A Qt4-based lightweight Twitter client >>>> net-im/qwit-devel A Qt4-based lightweight Twitter client >>>> net-im/rubygem-termtter A terminal based twitter client >>>> net-im/ttytter Command-line Twitter client in Perl >>>> net-im/twirssi Twitter script to irssi >>>> net-im/twitmail Curses-based mail-like interface to = twitter >>>=20 >>> No, of course not, that's not what I said. I'm talking only about = that >>> 1) we probably need to decide where we put Twitter-like and other >>> microblogging stuff from now on; and 2) we might move ports that do = not >>> require repocopies. >>=20 >> I agree with you, >>=20 >> What do you think about net-im as main category and www as second >> category? And if we get more social programs maybe a virtual >> category for social tools? >=20 > Touch choice, I would say. As it is sometimes described as "SMS of = the > Internet", both `net-im' and `www' seem to be appropriate categories. > Twitter might be viewed as some Web-2.0'ish mix of IRC+ICQ+SMS, which > kinda votes for `net-im', but=20 [...] ports/web20 *d&r* The question is, what is the key attribute that qualifies a port for the = www/ category. - Transporting data over http(s) - Creating, Serving and displaying Web pages. I would have guessed the latter. So I would vote for ports/net because not everything that has some kind = of interactivity is an instant messenger.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C8FA5EB-6E09-4663-82F7-996B469B1AD4>