Re: Blends pages, tasks pages etc.
Andreas Tille <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> - the number of defined "teaser" packages may be higher than the
>> available space on the web page, so it would need to select the
>> "highest ranking" (or a random selection?)
> We could cut at a defined maxteaser value. The only problem I see in
> this approach that the manual maintenance becomes a burden if you need
> to ensure manually that no duplicated Teaser values occure.
This seems to be too error-causing to me. Then (if we adopt the "teaser"
tag) it would probably be better to have them unsorted.
>> * Do we want to have them consistent between possibly different places
>> (Web page, tasksel)? Or is a local definition better here?
> Does tasksel allow for a certain sequence?
Not that I knew of. It is more a think-play (what is english for
"Gedankenspiel") to see where the teaser definition really belongs to:
is it part of the presentation (and should be defined in the web page),
or is it an attribute of the package itself?
> A totally different option which could live without the Teaser value
> would be to define the key packages according to their popcon value.
> This could serve as kind of an objective measure to rank packages in a
> task and it is implemented right now.
I'd be against this since the popcon does not reflect what I thought for
the teaser: It is not just "What is mostly used?", but "What could
attract people?". In my specific case (debian-astro), the two most
popular packages are f.e. kstars and stellarium; I would however select
only *one* of them as a teaser. The other would attract almost the same
people. I would instead try to choose three packages for three
* educational (that's kstars, or stellarium)
* amateur (indi???)
* professional (most likely astropy, even if does not have the highest
(or take kstars for the first two categories, and take another
professional program for another field of astrophysics).
The freedom of choice in the presentation is something that should IMO