Re: Gratuitous promotion of random binaries to standard
joost@rulcmc.leidenuniv.nl (joost witteveen) writes:
> > On 23 Jan 1998, James Troup wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Seelig <pseelig@goofy.zdv.Uni-Mainz.de> writes:
> > >
> > > > Currently MC is distributed with the priority "extra", but since it
> > > > is such a powerful tool for simplifying system administration tasks
> > > > i'd like to see it distributed with priority "standard" instead.
> > > >
> > > > Do you approve of this idea?
> > >
> > > No.
>
James, thank you very much for your most convincing and thorough
explanation of your reasons why you don't approve of my proposal.
I just love such verbosity in discussions. ;-)
> According to debian policy, every "normal" package should have priority
> "optional", unless
> - it's installation may cause problems with other packages,
> or do very strange things that really only very few people want.
> In this case it should be extra,
> - There are reasons to make it standard or higher priority.
> As there are no convincing reasons to make mc "extra", it should
> therefor have "optional" priority.
>
Joost, you have convinced me. And in the end i think that MC being
"optional" is good enough.
Thank you, P. *8^)
--
Paul Seelig pseelig@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
My Homepage in the WWW at the URL http://www.uni-mainz.de/~pseelig
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: