On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:38 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:58:00 -0300 > Ben Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'll recap and, I hope, sum up with a clarification of my point, as >> you seem to have not gotten it: > > No, I get it. I answer every point you raise, so you keep on making up > new and increasingly irrelevant objections. > >> The guiding principle for making each of the prebuilt desktop images >> is that they should reflect what you would get by default performing a >> Debian install and selecting each of those desktops. > > If that's the guiding principle, it's clearly a flexible one, because > all of the desktop ISO images -- >
Hi Ian, I can only give my personal opinion here since I am no authority in any respect. I think you are missing the point that Ben is patiently trying to make since the very beginning of this thread. He is talking about "flexibility" all the time whereas you seem to have those packages "hardcoded" in your argumentation. Maintaining a package list is a real PITA (capital letters should show how big a pita it is) and real hard work in a huge archive such as debian's is with hundreds of packages coming in and out on a daily basis, or sometimes simply being renamed. I suggest you think twice about all the possibilities that have been mentioned in the thread. You will surely appreciate the flexibility that the creation of live images offers (since it allows you to include those packages and many more). Enjoy your summer holiday :) -- chals www.chalsattack.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAJRhvALcCSnuodd4HXbk=j1qk_ls3ncqeqeu2y7cb5afnwy...@mail.gmail.com
