On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:23:22AM +0000, bug1 wrote:
> Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > i took that statement to be sarcastic. with the size of the distribution
> > growing so fast, shouldn't we have some restrictions on level of
> > completeness?
> If we start limiting the size, who is going to judge wether a package is
> "worthy" of inclusion ?
Here's a metric: if the package has a significant number of bugs, and
an alternative with equivalent and similarly provided functionality
(ie, they're both command line programs, they're both editors with the
same sort of keystrokes, they're both clones of the same game, etc)
but that's substantially bug-free, only the latter should be included
in the stable release.
Why is this good? It encourages stability. It makes it easier for users
to choose the stable, useful version of the package at first go. It hits
the most problematic packages, without accidently removing nvi and emacs
because we've got vim in the distribution.
> DVD's are getting cheaper and cheaper, this may easy the burdin of
> having to carry around four cd's or whatever its upto.
DVD's aren't getting much cheaper to actually make though.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgp24ZSu5orGE.pgp
Description: PGP signature