Re: Let's CENSOR it! (was: Uploaded anarchism 7.5-1 (source all) to master)
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Just some details...
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 1999 at 03:52:39PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > We are certainly not responsible for *everything* a clueless user may do,
> > but if we do not care at all about clueless users, then Debian will never
> > be for newbies.
> >
> > I think we should try to make a distribution for everybody, not only for
> > geeks who have a lot of time to read a lot of documents.
>
> Please remember that this is not the only package split in slink and
> that there are more things that can go wrong with the upgrade.
Again, this sounds like "since many things may be wrong with the upgrade,
we should not try to make the upgrade as painless as possible".
I do not agree with this.
> Besides,
> Release Notes is just one, and 'to-the-point' document.
A 20K Release Notes is a very long document. We should try to make it
shorter or else nobody will read it.
> > Only if you have those packages installed.
> >
> > If you don't have those packages installed (which depend on the xfonts-
> > packages, for example), the font packages are not upgraded.
>
> $ apt-cache showpkg /var/cache/apt/pkgcache.bin xfonts-75dpi
> Package: xfonts-75dpi
> Versions: 3.3.2.3a-11,
> Reverse Depends: <- this doesn't mean Depends:, but others too
> xfs,xfonts-75dpi
> gimp,xfonts-75dpi
> xserver-common,xfonts-75dpi
> xboard,xfonts-75dpi
> xfree86-common,xfonts-75dpi
> xf86setup,xfonts-75dpi
> [snip]
>
> It would be quite hard to miss them.
I don't have all those packages installed, and not every listed
"Depends:" is a real "Depends:". In some cases we have just a "Suggests:".
(Is this an APT bug?).
I want to upgrade by just pressing Enter, and a simple Suggests: does
not force the upgrade of all the font packages.
> > In turn, I have yet to see a *technical* (not *aesthetical*) reason why
> > the dummy packages may not be created.
>
> I'd say it is political: Branden is the maintainer, his word is the
> last if it's not a release-critical bug.
IMHO, there should be a reason better than that.
Thanks.
--
"848766641ad90c8b50dbce61c38c1261" (a truly random sig)
Reply to: