Re: Flyer issue

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2003, Michael Banck wrote:
> 
> > Somebody else proposed we put the date the flyer content was produced on
> > the flyer, so people realize it might be from last year and not totally
> > accurate. What do you think?
> This is definitely a good idea!
> 
> > Any other suggestions so far? Should we e.g. include Openoffice.org in
> > the list of applications, although it's only available in unstable and
> > via backports?
> I think the whole flyer is speaking about stable regarding released architectures,
> numbers of packages, etc.  So mentioning OpenOffice.org might confuse people.
> The only chance I would see is to explain package pools also on the flyer but
> this might blow up the thing to much.

If you want to include all such information and don't know how to integrate
it into the current general flyer, you may want to consider
creating a more "technical" second flyer.  However, if it will be printed
would be a second question as well, since printing two flyers is more
expensive than printing more of one flyer, and the second flyer won't
be used that much.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Testing?  What's that?  If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up, it is perfect.