Hi there,
we have a bunch of "obsolete" packages, which typically only still exist to
smoothly and automatically transit users to their successor packages.
Typically, such packages depend on fink-obsolete-packages, which marks them as
obsolete.
However, I just realized that end users may not be fully aware of this
"obsoleteness" and what it exactly means in many cases. This is made worse by
the fact that obsolete packages very often have not very helpful descriptions.
Consider a few examples:
alpine 2.00-108 Old version of a text-based email
client
pine 4.64-1100 Old version of a text-based email
client
pine-ssl 4.64-1100 Old version of a text-based email
client
-> the user is not told that "alpine" and "pine" do not actually contain pine
anymore, but rather are just dummies and that re-alpine is the real package
that's been installed silently. Yes, "fink info alpine" etc. will tell the
truth, but not everybody will check there.
Another example:
gftp-ssl 2.0.19-1 Obsolete, gftp is now unified
The term "unified" means nothing to a user.
And so on. I would like to propose that all obsolete packages receive a common,
uniform description, namely:
"OBSOLETE use FOO instead"
or maybe better
"OBSOLETE use package 'FOO' instead"
or something like that. Likewise, the DescDetail could be unified. Of course
this change would have to go along with a revision increment. We may want to
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Max
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xperia(TM) PLAY
It's a major breakthrough. An authentic gaming
smartphone on the nation's most reliable network.
And it wants your games.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-sfdev
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
