Re: Debtags for defining the minimal age that a program can generally be used
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:50:14PM +0200, Jean-Michel Philippe wrote:
> ...
> 1. have an idea of the age for which it is supposed to be fit
> 2. know the kind of apps it is (education, entertainment, music,
> drawing, etc.)
>
> So I agree with the 2 axes classification and think this should be
> achieved using in main tasks and meta-packages, rather than Debtags in
> my opinion.
Thanks for your comments (I cutted a bit).
> But this may not be sufficient. For example one of our
> concerns is to be able to propose packages sets for low-end machines and
> for high-end machines, especially because of ARM computers. I don't know
> if Debian Jr should deal with this because too much choices may sound
> confusing. For this reason I feel the Debian installer should only show
> the main choices, ie. small/middle/big child, teen. If parents don't
> want games, they'll have to go deeper in the Jr packages lists. If they
> want 3D games, the same.
Currently a GSoC project is running to make metapackages architecture
dependant. So if a binary package X is not available on architecture Y
it will not become included into the metapackage on this architecture.
I personally think that Debian Jr should simply assume that a package
that is available on a certain architecture would reasonably run on this
arch.
> Concerning the selection of packages, I'd like you to know that I've
> already looked at the current set of Jr. packages, with the intention of
> merging the DoudouLinux package sets [1] into them. Unfortunately both
> sets are using different classifications while the selected packages are
> quite different too
My suggestion is that the current classification should be considered
"historic" and there is no point to keep it stalled. If you have
different requirements nothing that currently exists should be set into
stone but rather changed as needed. However, I'd recommend to put the
reasons for the changes down into some kind of documentation.
> In the end I understood that some preparation work
> is required before making use of our work in Debian Jr. This is the work
> you've just started!
:-)
Just become a member of this change and feel free to propose a changed
set of tasks files.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: