RE: Keeping base, adding standard.

["Robert Collins" <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [mailto:cgf@redhat.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 4:21 PM

> >This comes back to what I said some time ago - that categories are 
> >necessary but not sufficient to provide a good user experience.

 
> Yadda, yadda.  I've said it all before.

Likewise.
 
> >Something like 'configurations' are needed (which may indeed be 
> >categories under the skin) that builds user focused 

> You're very unhappy with overloading categories while this is 
> exactly what I had envisioned when I suggested them.  And, I 
> strongly disagree with the above way of dealing with things.

Why? (Not trying to be dificult here).
 
> I hope this doesn't mean that I have to go back to 
> maintaining setup but I don't think anyone is going to 
> convince me that adding another layer to the process is going 
> to improve the user experience.

You are of course welcome to resume the mantle anytime you feel the
need. I'm surprised that a discussion point would bring it up though. I
certainly haven't threatened any "I won't do this" or suggested that
it's "my way or the highway". And as no setup.exe changes are needed to
do what you're proposing, my being setup maintainer is quite orthogonal
to my point of view on that.

> >OTOH leveraging dependencies via meta-packages to achieve it makes a 
> >lot of sense to me, the question is how to present it to the 
> user in a 
> >meaningful way.
> 
> Sorry.  I don't know what this means.  If you mean allowing 
> the addition of category names to dependencies then I think 
> that's a great idea.

I hadn't thought of that, but have no objection to it being done. I
can't think of any immediate use for it though.

What I meant was that if you want the user to select "Standard" and get
the packages you listed as being 'standard' installed, creating an empty
tarball that depends on those packages will do that.

Rob