On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 10:18:12AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > 6. Many people complaint that the pool is too bloated, priorities too > generic, too many packages to pick the right one from the list... > > [ ] making some packages be more "important" to others is bad and will > make create some kind of "elite" and "second class" packages I'm not certain of this, but it certainly seems a plausible risk. > [ ] we need a way to priorize the packages, review them, set keywords > on the package (desktop/edu/demudi/...) and setting the appropriate > priority for the target user group This kind of presumes the truth of the previous statement. > [ ] the problem exists but I hope someone will fix it after my DPLship No, if there's consensus that there really is a widely-perceived problem here, the DPL should try to see what can be done about it. > [ ] there is no problem, the current system is just right That someone may not agree with the premise of your question does not necessarily mean that someone thinks the current system is "just right"; that's a false alternative. > 7. There are lots of backport series for Woody environment because > people do not want to wait two years for a simple update, eg. when > their software is not supported by ancient versions in Woody... > > [ ] there are no problems with Woody! > [ ] we should try to legalize such efforts and create a semi-automatic > system, similar to Raphaels former "Debian-Working" concept > [ ] those are not the users we want > [ ] such people should shut up and wait "a bit" I can't agree with any of these, either. I think the Stable Release Manager should be involved in discussion. I will not -- and under the Constitution, I *cannot* -- pre-empt the decision-making of a delegate. -- G. Branden Robinson | Never underestimate the power of Debian GNU/Linux | human stupidity. branden@debian.org | -- Robert Heinlein http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgp98FXwze38_.pgp
Description: PGP signature