Re: anarchism_7.7-1.deb
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Ed Boraas wrote:
> I can't help but infer from this statement that you feel the anarchism
> package is of low worth. If this was not your intent, please feel free to
> clarify.
For myself, no I don't. But it is only a concern of Debian if for
instance there was a real space crunch or something. Mainly I was trying
to address the notion that such choices couldn't be made or Debian would
lose it's soul (if some people will pardon the expression :-) if it did.
or if you remove one you have to remove them all etc. I don't believe
those are good arguments.
> The concept of "worth" is by its nature a qualitative assesment, and
> therefore subjective. I would be inclined to say that it would be
> impossible to correctly judge the worth of a given package. Nevertheless,
> there are other properties we can consider: general "quality" and "fitness
> for a particular purpose". For instance, if a package is ridden with bugs
> (be they shortcomings in code, or grammatical errors in text), one could
> judge it to be of low quality, possibly low enough to warrant removing it
> from the distribution. Contextual fitness, on the other hand, rates a
> package as having "worth" in a particular situation. Sure, the anarchist
> FAQ may not be useful in learning to write applications in GTK+, but that
> doesn't mean it's not applicable to debian's userbase.
>
> Probably many users of debian will never find use for the anarchism
> package. So be it. The fact remains that there are quite a few debian
> users who do find it useful. [The number of emails i got when i was late
> packaging the most recent version of the FAQ is testament to that. <g>]
>
Well I have no problems whatsoever with that. In fact the more we know
about what our users like the better we can make Debian. We should
ask. Maybe it's time we had some market research. Not the "we can
increase sales 18% if we put a pink stripe on the box" kind but some kind
of survey of who exactly our users our and what they like and dislike.
There are some logistical problems in doing this right so i'm going to
think about this a bit and comeback with a proposal before saying anymore.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com>
Reply to: