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

Re: Priority Levels

On Sun, Jun 13, 1999 at 06:32:42PM -0400, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 1999 at 10:09:37PM -0700, David Starner wrote:
> > One, that developers take "all the software that you might 
> > reasonably want to install if you didn't know what it was 
> > or don't have specialised requirements" more strictly. 
> With 2792 optional packages to 573 extra (in my available files), the
> distinction is nearly worthless.

Perhaps this might be because the default rules made by dh_make sets
the priority at optional?  I'm definitely guilty, myself, at leaving
the priority at what dh_make had put in the control file, when I used
it to create my packages... perhaps setting it initially to "extra"
would be better?  At least for those new packages that use dh_make...
JM2C, of couse ;)


Webster's Dictionary definition of Windows95:
Windows95: <win-doz-nin-te-fiv> n.
    32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8
    bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor,
    written by a 2 bit company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

Attachment: pgpSqLN0azZ5o.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: