Bug#400829: live-package should "suggest" apt-cacher or similar
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:34:22 -0500
csights <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the nice iso auto build script! I stumbled across it while
> looking for a way to customize liveCDs. Sweet!
> Anyway, I think "Suggesting" apt-cacher along with some commented out
> configuration in /etc/make-live.conf would be a slick way to inform the user
> of a nice way to make repeatedly rebuilding the .iso much faster.
I don't see any particular reason to suggest apt-cacher over, for example, approx which appears to me to be in better health than apt-cacher, which was recently removed from testing and re-added again a few days later, which has 34 outstanding bugs against it, 4 of which are 'important' and range from 98 to 263 days old, and which has not had a new upstream release since May. Approx, by comparison, is actively being developed upstream and has just 3 active bugs (though admittedly these numbers are probably skewed by apt-cacher being the older and better known of the two packages, and is not necessarily indicative of package quality.)
Anyway, the point is, how do you decide which package to "suggest" if several might provide the same functionality, each with its own distinct advantages and disadvantages? Perhaps all of the alternatives should provide a virtual package, e.g. Provides: apt-package-proxy?
,-. nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca email@example.com
\`' Debian http://www.debian.org firstname.lastname@example.org
` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
[ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]