Re: Should we divide Debian to usable and unusable
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 02:47:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 03:59:06PM +0300, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> > we have 1371 pre 1.0 packages, against 5309 packages total..
> > (approx 25%)
> This is an absolutely meaningless statistic. Pre-1.0 version numbers don't
> mean the package is unusable or useless anymore than post-1.0 version
> numbers mean a package doesn't crash every second time you use it.
> You'll note, for example, that Apt hasn't made 1.0.0 yet.
the statistics were there to show where we are..
this percentage should be much smaller, just because it makes linux
more professional (No flames about this please!) it makes a whole lot of
difference to the end users what is the current version number.. think
of it.. would you use Debian if it was 0.6.. or 0.2.4? the point for
those figures was that the suftware that is considered finished, shoudl
be 1.0 it would be more interesting to look for software older that 4
or 5 months that hasn't changes since and still has pre 1.0 version...
> If you really want to go through the packages in slink, potato, and woody,
> and provide some accurate *meaningful* measure of how many packages don't
> actually do anything, that might be more helpful.
> A report such as:
> foo 0.0.3 is unusable, and there's already a package bar (0.4.2)
> that does everything foo can do and better.
> baz 0.1.2 is pretty buggy, but the only replacement (quux 3.1.4)
> is in non-free.
> would be helpful and interesting, I imagine.
i agree with you here... it would be more useful too...
this info should then be showed when user installs this package.
Warning: there is a more suitable package for this purpose, quux (3.1.4)
although this would be an advanced option to disable this, i have
preferrances too, i like some programs more than others, even if it is