On 12/3/10, Peter FELECAN <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an original way to say: if the features of a current product > aren't complete and adequate do not use it. I don't think that in the > real world that you like so much this is an acceptable attitude. Or is > it?
I think it is more accurate to say, "some 'features' cause more problems than they solve, so adding every requested 'feature', is not always the best path". This is a very "real world" practical attitude, that most software companies follow. >> Or, just go with whatever the maintainer prefers as "top" priority, >> and presume the user/admin will use the --set option if they have a >> different opinion on order. > > In the original post the case was exactly what the maintainer wants: to > set the same priority for a set of packages. What's different here? There is a difference. I describe "maintainer choosing a specfic order". What you describe is, "maintainer refusing to choose a specific order". Same priority == lack of order. another word for "lack of order" is "chaos", btw :) >> Order of install is often not an explicit priority-based choice, but >> effectively random. So having a sticky selection based on "first >> installed", is not a good policy. >> User would be better served knowing with certainty, "if I have both >> pkgA, and pkgB installed, then pkgB will ALWAYS get priority.. unless >> I override with --set" >> Rather than have to remember, "oh dont install pkgA, unless you've >> installed pkgB first!" > > Well, in this case you lean toward deserving a part of the user > base. I did not understand your comment _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
