Re: ITP: Debian History
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 04:06:36PM -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> > I might agree that there are packages in extra that don't belong in extra,
> > and that there are packages outside of extra that should be in extra.
>
> maybe someone will find better wording for priority-definitions ?
In the old says, you could install all the optional packages without
any conflict. So, "optional" was what you would install if you wanted to
"install everything".
I think it is a good idea that we continue to keep the set of
required+important+standard+optional packages consistent in the sense that
there should not be conflitcs between them, even if nobody is really
willing to install everything. This way a newbie user is not annoyed
by the conflicts.
We should probably clarify what we understand by "specialized requirement".
This sometimes means that the package does only work when you have
special hardware, but there are other reasons to be in extra (for example,
btw: Now that the extra priority has been slightly clarified in policy:
Have we decided which httpd server will be "the optional one"? (all the
others should be extra). It was suggested to make apache the optional
one. Do we need a general resolution to decide about this?
Thanks.
--
"10bcd7eb2dd674c967b909bf0d7b5037" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: