[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reasons for recommends and suggests

On Fri, 18 May 2007, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> I would very much be in favor of adding new, optional fields that
> describe the dependencies of the package. These can be integrated
> into the package management interface at appropriate points, without
> cluttering the description itself.

While I think it would be better to use README.Debian, since you're
going to end up writing one implementation, do whatever you decide is
> Stuffing information into README.Debian doesn't help, since (a) you
> can't read it until you've installed the package, and 

Adapting the p.d.o changelog script to do this would allow it to be
seen before the package is installed, so that's not exactly

> (b) NLP parsing isn't good enough to find the text you need and
> extract it automatically :-).

It's not like it would be difficult to decide on a standard to allow
the segment of text in README.Debian that described the optional
dependencies (or other information that a packagea maintainer thought
people may be interested in knowing as they're deciding what else to
install besides the package.)

In any event, I think I've made my opinion clear enough, so I'll stop

Don Armstrong

She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
 -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: