Quoting Frans Pop (elendil@planet.nl): > > Another idea would be ranking languages by number of speakers. > > And put Dutch way down the list? Never! :-P You don't care as all Dutch-speaking ppl I've met just say that they don't use Dutch translations because: - they prefer English (nl_NL version) - they don't like the way Dutch is used and anyway it's Flemish (nl_BE version) :-) More seriously, doing so is anyway quite unfair to some communities where the development and use of Debian and CDD is much wider than the population (hint: Finland). > Or maybe % of completed po-debconf translations? Or ... Yay, I vote for that one..:-). If we fall short on one, that could work quite well, yes. > I'd say that relative contribution to Debian would be a pretty fair > criterion, which probably would come close to justifying the list you > proposed... Just need to raise CJK a bit, then. > To be serious. The best solution would be to prioritize _within_ tasks. > Tasksel already supports "key" packages and "regular" packages. I entirely agree. This is quite a tedious task but would definitely help. Actually, I was not very keen about the difference between "key" and "regular" packages so most of the tasks (which I wrote quite quickly in the past) are not very consistent wrt this. > I could even see the introduction in tasksel of a third, call it "extra", > class that would list "nice to have, but no problem if it's not available" > packages" which are either ignored for debian-cd package sorting purposes > or are sorted after "regular" packages. I like this idea a little bit better than: > Or, alternatively, just creating <lang>-extra tasks that contain such > packages and are either listed lower down in task.list or not listed at all > (but that would possibly make language task selection in aptitude a bit > less obvious). ....which would lead to yet another series of tasks and related tedious maintenance bits for no real benefit. Implementing "extra" packages needs someone to do the work, though. > I also wondered about sorting all <lang> tasks before all <lang>-desktop > tasks, but am not sure if that would be logical or not. It could improve > basic language support for some languages lower down the list, but could > also result in just more manpages packages being sorted early. I have no strong advice here: IMHO, anyway, except for "historical" languages (mostly european and CJK), the vast majority of users insisting on a localized environment will choose a desktop task....and then get the <language>-desktop task. > Anyway, my conclusion is that improvements should not be sought by fighting > over the sort order, but by improving the way packages between and within > tasks are prioritized. In different words: by having a very clear policy of > how task files should be written and ensuring that this is done > consistently for all languages. Yes. We currently have nothing and thngs are far from being consistent.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature