Re: Size of Optional - policy and name for new Priority
On 18 Mar 1999, Guy Maor wrote:
> If our intent is that practically all systems install Standard and
> higher, do we really need four tiers there? Let's broaden important
> so it includes our current standard software and redefine standard as
> Ian suggested the new priority be defined.
Good idea, but if we redefine standard, dselect will install a lot of new
packages by default.
How would we make this change to be fully backwards compatible?
[ For example: Would there be a "day D" for the dselect upgrade that
behaves differently with respect to "the new meaning of standard"? ].
"623557c8d847d9eeadc6cd3d48a4261c" (a truly random sig)