Re: [GNU-linux-libre] more http://libreplanet.org/wiki?title=NONFSDG stuff

[Karl Goetz]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:56:23 -0400
Brett Smith <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 12:06 +0930, Karl Goetz wrote:
> > firefox-3.0
> >     same reason(s) as firefox. could share the heading?
> > kubuntu-meta, ubuntu-meta, ubuntu-artwork, and equivilant
> > metapackages. do we care? we probably just want a section
> > 'metapackages' or something and dump all of debian/ubuntu/other
> > metapackages in there if we do.
> 
> I'm concerned that if we separately list individual-but-related
> packages, the list could quickly get *too* comprehensive, and make it
> more difficult for people to find useful information when they're not
> searching for something very specific.  (But maybe that's an
> unimportant use case?  You tell me.)

I tend to agree. the way i built the list was a copy paste into a file,
then some shell magic to pull out the headings and list them. imo thats
almost the perfect way for it to work :)

> Maybe it would be most useful to add something like an optional
> "Related package names" field to the infobox we're already using?
> And this could intentionally be a little vague/flexible, so that it
> could be useful for all these cases: variant package names for
> specific versions or distros (like firefox-3.0), one entry for all
> the troublesome metapackages, one entry for both bnetd and pvpgn, etc.

In the case of firefox-3.0 its a new binary package, but for the same
browser with the same problems.
i think we need to be careful to keep it focused on the package(s), not
their package name(s) in specific distros.
kk

> Just a suggestion, though; feel free to ignore it if something else
> works better.
> 


-- 
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS)
Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature