[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFD: new optional field for 'control'

  Bruce Perens writes:
  Bruce>  From: iwj10@cus.cam.ac.uk (Ian Jackson)
  >> If we were going to do this a separate admin info file (like
  >> `conffiles'), it would be more appropriate...
  Bruce>  OK. I think the easiest way to deal with this is to distribute a
  Bruce> foo-2.5-0.html file with the package of the same name, and let the
  Bruce> script pick up that it is there.

This leads to too much file clutter. Why not a debian.html or
debian.control-html or whatever within the .deb package?

  >> Remember, we're trying to concentrate on providing a good operating
  >> system, not an impressive-looking WWW site.
  Bruce>  Here's where I have to differ: Marketing is very important. What
  Bruce> good is Debian if nobody uses it? A good looking package list on the
  Bruce> WWW site helps the prospective users decide if Debian has what they
  Bruce> want, and thus helps the them decide to put Debian on their systems.

You're both right. But featurism is be a bigger a problem, IMHO, so I'd
follow Ian here. Debian is good because it's well made, not because it's well
sold. Don't copy from Micro$oft ;-).
How about a perl script that builds the html pages out of what can be found
already in the debian.control file? 


Dirk Eddelbuettel		                   

Reply to: