Re: Package organization issue...
On 26 Apr 1997, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> Dale Scheetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Third:This is really just a personal request. I think that mc should be
> > part of standard. This would bring libgpm1 into standard as well.
> I like mc, too, but it's not got any claim at all to being standard.
> It'd a DOS-ism applied to Unix.
I understand that mc started life as a clone of the DOS tool of similar
name, but today it is far more than a simple window philosophy. Its
virtual file systems, the ftp file system in particular, make it a well
integrated Unix tool. I'm not sure what the criterion should be for entry
into the "standard" section of the distribution, but I don't think it
should have anything to do with the set of programs found on the average
Unix machine on Feb 6. 1979 (or any other fixed date). As I understand it
those things in standard are those things that most folks expect to find
in the distribution without having to explicitly ask for them. When I do a
"standard" installation (read skip the selection phase of dselect) I
always need to go in and select libgpm1 and mc so I can move around
comfortably in the new system.
As I said earlier, this is a personal preference on my part. The current
vote (if that's how this should be decided) is 2 to 1 in favor on
inclusion. Of course the sample is much too small for any indications of
general preference, but should also point out that the one negative vote
was still personaly in favor of the software.
How do we decide something like this?
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: email@example.com Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .