Re: ITP: Debian History
On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 10:51:54AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> > maybe someone will find better wording for priority-definitions ?
>
> In the old says, you could install all the optional packages without
> any conflict. So, "optional" was what you would install if you wanted to
> "install everything".
>
> I think it is a good idea that we continue to keep the set of
> required+important+standard+optional packages consistent in the sense that
> there should not be conflitcs between them, even if nobody is really
> willing to install everything. This way a newbie user is not annoyed
> by the conflicts.
>
> We should probably clarify what we understand by "specialized requirement".
> This sometimes means that the package does only work when you have
> special hardware, but there are other reasons to be in extra (for example,
>
> btw: Now that the extra priority has been slightly clarified in policy:
> Have we decided which httpd server will be "the optional one"? (all the
> others should be extra). It was suggested to make apache the optional
> one. Do we need a general resolution to decide about this?
No !!!!!
Dont do this !!!!!
It's horrible idea. Chosing THO ONLY PROPER (TM) ftpd, httpd etc.
will only be the cause of war amongst maintainers and users.
We should end the idea that ftpds, httpds conflicts each other.
One might want to have cern-httpd at 80 and apache at 5080 or any
other odd configuration.
Reply to: