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

Re: ITP: Debian History

On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 01:43:17PM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 05-Nov-99, 06:30 (CST), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> wrote: 
> > 
> >      `extra'
> >           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"
> clause.

But if packages get semi-randomly tossed into extra, it doesn't help
anyone. As it is, debian-history is useful if you're looking for
a history of debian, where as fvwm1 (currently extra) isn't useful
if you're just looking for a window manager - it's primarily useful
if you want fvwm1. That's what extra is for.

David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org

Reply to: