On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 02:57:43PM +0100, Mariusz Przygodzki wrote:
> On Friday 15 December 2000 13:58, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For woody, it'd be nice if we could use the Priority field consistently.
> > What do people think of something like:
> > common (new)
> > -- Everything that can be installed without going into
> > dselect. Emacs, TeX, X, Gnome, KDE, Abiword, whatever.
> > All the task- packages.
> > optional
> > -- Everything else people might reasonably be interested in
> Hmmm. It would be very difficult (mainly for maintaners) to classify some
> packages as "Optional" in such case. "Commom" sounds much better than
> "Optional" for me and, according to your examples of "common" packages,
> maintaners may always prefer "Common" as a priority for their packages.
I'd think a restriction something like ``all `common' packages must be
included in at least one task'', which means they only get to be common
if they can convince one of the task maintainers to include their package.
Note that if the package isn't in a task, and isn't standard, it can't
be installed without going into dselect (or apt-get, or console-apt or
something equivalent).
> BTW, do you think WindowMaker or Englightenment packages should have
> priorities "Common" in such case?
wmaker is in "task-gnome-desktop" at the moment, which would mean it
would be (at least until Joey does away with that task :), enlightenment
wouldn't be.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
Attachment:
pgp7qzIIAIwzt.pgp
Description: PGP signature