> As far as I'm concerned, the quality of the packages is a direct > reflection on Novell/SUSE. If there are broken or low low quality > packages, it will reflect poorly on Novell/SUSE. > > Now, if you are simply talking about making a repository of packages > available (but not on the official DVD/CD's I buy from SUSE), then > that's a different matter, but if it's in the boxed set I buy, SUSE > is 100% responsible in my mind. I don't think it would be a good > business decision to allow any low quality items into the official > distro.
I fail to see how having an additional set of CDs, marked as "additional" or "optional" would hurt you: you'd get exactly the same CDs, with exactly the same quality, plus an additional set of "optional" or "additional" CDs with additional packages. Just in case you got the right idea, I am in no way advocating that broken / low low quality packages into SuSE! As I said, I am advocating alternatives that would get us plently of relatively good-quality packages in the distribution. Broken or low low quality packages should be removed. As I said, the "only Novell decides what goes in" approach is way too extreme. For example, I plan to make a few of my own that I think have very very little chances of ending up "broken or low low quality". With the current approach, these get locked out of the official distribution. I would hold Novell 100% responsible for the SuSE Linux release but I would be inclined to allow more participation in the SuSE Linux OSS products (which I think would end up being of very good quality overall anyway). Thanks. Alejo. http://azul.freaks-unidos.net/ ---=( Comunidad de Usuarios de Software Libre en Colombia )=--- ---=( http://bachue.com/colibri )=--=( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )=---
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
