sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
- From: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
- To: Justin Rocha <jrocha AT sourcemage.org>
- Cc: sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 23:00:02 -0500
I prefer spells that can't work without gnome/kde be in those sections
and spells that can use them but are not dependent on them go into the
other sections.
The reason there was an xchat2 in gnome was it was the only irc that
worked with gtk+2/gnome2 at the time and since it was a beta it wound up
there.
CuZnDragon
Robin Cook
On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 18:05, Justin Rocha wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-09-04 at 09:37, Eric Sandall wrote:
> > As for where packages go, I also like to keep gnome/kde products in those
> > sections, but then what about packages such as xchat? That depends on gtk
> > (which is actually GIMP, not GNOME, but GNOME uses it and so lots of
> > people
> > think GTK is GNOME) and such? That may not have been the best example,
> > but...
>
> I've always been of the opinion that spells should go in the section for
> that type of spell. IE, xchat in chat, evolution in mail, etc.
>
> It's always confused me why we have spells such as xchat2 (well, not any
> more) in gnome. xchat isn't even part of the gnome project! ;-)
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Seth Woolley, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Duane Malcolm, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Dufflebunk, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Geoffrey Derber, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Jason Flatt, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Hamish Greig, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Geoffrey Derber, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Eric Sandall, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Justin Rocha, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Jason Flatt, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Robin Cook, 09/05/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Jason Flatt, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Geoffrey Derber, 09/03/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Dufflebunk, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Geoffrey Derber, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Jose Bernardo Silva, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Arwed von Merkatz, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Eric Sandall, 09/04/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Duane Malcolm, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?, Jason Flatt, 09/04/2003
- [SM-Grimoire] Re: SMGL at work (WAS: new section office?), Dufflebunk, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: SMGL at work (WAS: new section office?), Eric Sandall, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: SMGL at work (WAS: new section office?), Tony Smith, 09/04/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: SMGL at work (WAS: new section office?), Jose Bernardo Silva, 09/05/2003
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire] new section office?,
Seth Woolley, 09/03/2003
- Re: [SM-Grimoire] Re: SMGL at work (WAS: new section office?), Robin Cook, 09/04/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.