Re: ITP: Debian History
On 05-Nov-99, 06:30 (CST), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <email@example.com> wrote:
> This contains packages that conflict with others with higher
> priorities, or are only likely to be useful if you already know
> what they are or have specialized requirements.
> I agree, a Debian history document does not qualify for extra, so it
> should be optional.
We've had lots of complaints that there are too many packages in
Optional. The correct solution is a level between "Standard" and
"Optional", and Ian Jackson (IIRC) proposed many months ago, but until
that happens I'd like to see most new packages go into extra. I think I
can justify it in this case based on the "already know what they are"
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)