[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. 
> Please.  As a user, I would be very grateful to see many packages moved to
> extra, and most new packages placed there.
> In order for the optional category to be serve its stated purpose, the set
> of <= optional packages should be easily browseable and consume a reasonable
> amount of disk space.  Another heuristic might be, "would most experienced
> Un*x users recognize this package?".  Installs are painful when I have to
> scroll through hundreds of unfamiliar packages just to see the ones I "might
> reasonably want".
> With 2792 optional packages to 573 extra (in my available files), the
> distinction is nearly worthless.

Extra is for generally for packages which require something unusual, like
extra hardware. How can we decide what a user would reasonably want to
install, so we can put it in optional? With a set of programs which all
do the same thing (eg half a dozen console-based sound mixers), how can
we decide which one to make optional and which to make extra?
I think the definition of optional is flawed.

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). 
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.

Reply to: