Re: stupid idea - metapackages
On Fri, May 21, 1999 at 12:38:16AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Christian Meder <meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 08:32:29PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> > > I suggest we all follow naming conventions, i.e., 'metapkg-*', so that
> > > it's easy to pick these babies out.
>
> > When this idea was tossed around for the first time (around Sep 1998) we
> > settled for profile-* packages.
> >
> > I still think it's the better solution as it's consistent with the
> > terms used during installation (minimizes the chance to confuse a first
> > time user).
>
> I'm amenable to using 'profile-*' naming. Martin?
Actually I think your SGML package should be named task-* to keep it
similar to the boot-floppies naming convention:
task-* are groupings of packages which together build an environment
to accomplish a certain task (e.g. Webserving, writing SGML documents,
writing (La)TeX documents, ...)
profile-* are groupings of tasks which together build an environment
for a specific user group (e.g. scientist, home user, admin,
graphic artist, musician, ...)
>
> > Otherwise I propose this FAQ entry:
> >
> > Q.: Why are the profiles named metapkg in the packaging system after
> > initial installation ?
> > A.: Uh, oh, it's just that we wanted to give Debian a more philosophical
> > touch.
>
> Ok, so sue me,
> I'm was a philosophy major. ;)
>
> Uber-packages ? (just kidding)
Actually we need (functional) german font support in dpkg before we can
call them Ueber-package (german umlaut u) ;-)
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
Reply to: