Re: stupid idea - metapackages
Christian Meder <meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de> writes:
> On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 08:32:29PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > I suggest we all follow naming conventions, i.e., 'metapkg-*', so that
> > it's easy to pick these babies out.
> When this idea was tossed around for the first time (around Sep 1998) we
> settled for profile-* packages.
>
> I still think it's the better solution as it's consistent with the
> terms used during installation (minimizes the chance to confuse a first
> time user).
I'm amenable to using 'profile-*' naming. Martin?
> Otherwise I propose this FAQ entry:
>
> Q.: Why are the profiles named metapkg in the packaging system after
> initial installation ?
> A.: Uh, oh, it's just that we wanted to give Debian a more philosophical
> touch.
Ok, so sue me, I'm was a philosophy major. ;)
Uber-packages ? (just kidding)
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: