Re: Priorities
On 09-Oct-00, 13:57 (CDT), Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 12:13:47PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >
> > preferred: The Debian preferred implementation of a common service that
> > has multiple implementations (e.g. webservers, SMTP, mp3 players, etc.)
>
> Couldn't that just go in standard under the above? (I presume the
> "preferred" mp3 encoder/player would be brough in by a task-annoy-the-riaa
> package or similar). What if we have multiple "preferred" packages that
> don't conflict (mp3 players, mail readers, editors, ...)? Is that a problem?
> I don't think it really is, personally.
It's not "standard" because they are things that may not be necessary or
even common.
As far as "mutliple preferred packages", my intent is that such a phrase
is an oxymoron; the whole *idea* is help the users select one particular
implementation out of several possibilities. Basically, we'd be saying
"If you're not sure which {web-server, whatever} to install, try this
one first."
It's not the same as "task packages", because the intent of those (as
I understand it) is to group various packages that work together. I'm
also bothered (a little) by the "task-webserver-roxen" (why is there no
"task-webserver"?), in that it doesn't offer much guidance (because it
implies the existence of t-w-apache, t-w-boa, etc.).
Maybe we shouldn't be in the guidance business. But if we're going to
mess with the definitions of the priorities (which I think is a good
thing, if only to clarify *our* thinking), then this is the time to
consider the idea.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: