Re: OT to Debian [Was: RFC/ITP: Constitution of Finland]
On Wed, Apr 19, 2000 at 06:23:43PM -0400, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> > I don't think that should be the measure. The programs parsing/searching
> > those data files are quite small in size compared to the files themselves.
> > Existance of specialized programs to read the data isn't the purpose of
> > having the data in there in the first place, it's the data itself that's
> > important and its features should be the primary criteria of the placement
> > of the packages.
> > Besides, moving stuff to another section doesn't mean expunging, there are
> > little downsides to doing it... making people add another line in their
> > sources.list doesn't sound so bad to me.
> The data section probably won't be on the "Official Debian CD".
> It would be confusing for people with no, limited, or expensive
> Internet access to install dictd or bible-kjv and then find they
> couldn't find the data needed by these programs.
True. But "oh well", they'd just have to get another CD containing the data
section. Since the official Debian already isn't one CD but several (four?),
it shouldn't matter that much.
We could even put the related programs in contrib or data, to make it more
obvious. (dict can do without dict-* packages and with Internet access, so
this is a bit more complicated).
Frankly, new users don't expect a Linux distribution to ship with an English
dictionary or a Bible, I was quite surprised when I saw it first time
myself. They are all useful, sure, but they really don't quite belong
to the same heap of software where there are fsck, gcc, or even xchat.
BTW my mail to you is bouncing with a 550...?
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification