Re: package splits

[Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE>]

James R. Van Zandt wrote:
> Here are the 17 packages, where the ones with stars are not mentioned
> in the above "suggests" line:
> 
>     *  mail/xmh
>     *  x11/rstart
>     *  x11/rstartd
>       x11/twm
>       x11/xbase
>     *  x11/xbase-clients
>     *  x11/xdm
>     *  x11/xext
>       x11/xf86setup
>     *  x11/xfs
>     *  x11/xlib6g
>     *  x11/xlib6g-dev
>       x11/xmodmap
>     *  x11/xproxy
>       x11/xserver-common
>     *  x11/xsm
>       x11/xterm
> 
> Is this good enough, or should some be added to "suggests", or
> upgraded to "recommends"?  (I don't remember exactly what these imply
> at upgrade time, and I can't find documentation on it beyond the
> little in the FAQ.)

Generally speaking it looks good.  There are only very few people who
are using twm, even I prever ctwm or vtwm, so it's not needed.  But
many people have reported that they lost their xterm - so did I, btw.
It should be mentioned as recommend.

> Is there general agreement that I should file "critical" bugs on
> packages that do not at least "recommend" the new packages, as
> suggested by Santiago Vila?

I don't think this justifies a critical bug report.  Please only
file normal ones.  If you feel that the bug is important please
get in touch with the proper maintainers so they can decide if
they direct the next upload to frozen or not.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.