Re: Size of Optional - policy and name for new Priority
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 01:16:21PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 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.
It would have been a good idea EXCEPT ... (reason above). Increasing the
size of our default install is *not* a good thing.
I see in a different message that Guy thinks this is also not a good idea
so I'm happy.