gpm in standard or not [was: Re: interesting times installing 2.4.17 in Woody...]
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 04:46:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > > In general, gpm should *NOT* be the default (if you install an X
> > > > desktop, anyway, which can be used as a signal you aren't likely to
> > > > want cut and paste on the consoles). It only makes interactive
> > > > behavior of the system worse by interposing a user process.
> > >
> > > Jim's convinced me that gpm should not be in standard, the benefits of
> > > not having the repeater going are woth it for all the people who want
> > > a desktop, and it's easy enough to install gpm if you need it. Another
> > > task could also continue to pull it in. Anyway, of all the potato
> > > installs (which all lacked gpm by default), I only got three or four
> > > comments from people who would have preferred it install gpm, and the
> > > potential improvement outweighs that.
> > I've been on the edge of putting it in optional for a while now, if the
> > general consensus is that it should not be standard then my next upload
> > (which should fix the current big bugs, though they are VERY much kernel
> > bugs as well.).
> There's still room to make a task pull it in, if we can pinpoint a good
> task to put it in. The closest existing task is unix-server, but it's
> not _quite_ the right place. Still, I don't think we'll get any more
> upset users leaving it out of standard than we did not installing
> standard at all in potato!
Any task for people who want to use Linux console should include gpm, or any
other program that allows copy&paste. I still believe there's a lot of
people out there that won't run X for all their needs.
I've just been told about this thread -- I wouldn't think we'd make
decisions about whether a package is to stay in standard as a subthread
of a thread called like this. (One could even understand this as sneaky
and evasive. >:>)
2. That which causes joy or happiness.