Re: Logo contest
the rationale behind two logos is that one is a debian is cool logo and another is a this is official debian logo. they should look different enough that you can tell whether someone is merely praising debian or actually shipping it. i agree, though, that there should be no restriction that the logos actually chosen must both be drawn by the same person. --phouchg
Re: Installation Profiles [was: Re: Reality check!]
Might it be possible to include fewer packages in each profile and then present the user with a list of additional packages that might be of interest to them given that they have chosen this particular profile? Something like You have installed the Scientific Workstation profile. The following additional packages may be of interest ... a possibility i considered: divide user-space (i use the term loosely here. things that wouldn't be considered user-space by some, such as the interpreters section, count) packages into heirarchical groups (structure identical or similar to the debian menus, possibly?). have a level wherein the user selects any of these he wants; it will be easy to skip those things he obviously doesn't want (i can safely skip Applications/Ham-Radio and such things). this would save a *lot* of time, especially for anal people like me who actually read all two to three thousand package descriptions (really. initially installing hamm took me all weekend). any dependencies are autoselected, so i don't have to spend hours looking through libweird-2.3, libweird-2.3-dev, libweird2.3-dbg, libweird2.3-doc, libweird4.2, libweird4.2-dev, libweird4.2-dbg, libweird4.2-doc, ad infinitum (or at least ad nauseam). according to policy i should be able to just install all the optional things and then look at extra iff i want something really specialized, but that really doesn't scale too well. --phouchg
bug? with file-rc
dpkg -l file-rc ii file-rc 0.4.3 Alternative one-configfile boot mechanism i don't know if this is supposed to be the case or not, but contrary to file-rc's documentation, scripts are not run in reverse order for shutting down. is this a debian-specific thing or merely a bug? are the etc/rcN.d/Kmm* scripts run in descending order when file-rc is not used? i find it rather strange, especially since not reversing shutdown scripts makes it necessary to double the number of lines in /etc/runlevel.conf (and have the numbers of start/stop links in /etc/rcN.d differ) in those cases where order does matter. --phouchg
Re: Debian logo its license
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- is the name debian a registered trademark? if it is, wouldn't it be sensible to do the same for the logo? - --p. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNqt2MUJhnFR90XSjAQHeFAf9EULUklt0QfjI2DAbrPK2A9ZmmmUvOhFY x0PpYHWvWoOF1nfiyuECerd1dLAaYsk748TWya+FuOMK8xl4aJYLE4CtcdYO3LPH FlUOPL0QgKj5sS9+a6xuSBnrnxvFAsvNBk5RYJamSZOIDaFTsAnBr5jseG+MjC+c 2Rt4IDYMBgAFoR/m8hs9MOFV9rln5oTZKGKjyzz0XeKsuf5jw8QKiIDQgGk9sLc/ 36n2/LPS/5K/lClz1B4uKqLZSSwSWmvcWSymubKeg7dZn9QL5thZYZLZpPs/65XV IbYDaIPPmwWh4NcWRPDocs+ymNdmgKpq5ftfq8DjhdZV50d2mps8sg== =IiPD -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: the Great X Reorganization, package splits, and renaming
This means that we're willing to hold off on upgrades to all font packages until the relevant apt support for package renaming is ready. I just hope the rest of the world agrees that this is wise. it's not. i'm new here, so i'm not sure if this is an old topoic or not, but debian distributions can get really out of date as it is. xfree86 3.3.3 has been out since november... it's not on slink, and it had some *major* advantages (my display card, for instance) while remaining to my knowledge completely backwards compatible with 3.3.2. if an elegant solution to the problem is impossible, and for the immedieate future it is, better have an ugly hack that will work until we fix the problem *without* depending on software not changing or an earthquake wiping out all debian systems causing them to need to start from scratch anyway or any equally unlikely assumption. in short: ass-ugly is better than either broken or uselessly out of date. [What's wrong with using the empty package mechanism, and waiting for apt to give us a way of making defunct empty packages delete themselves?] why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're going to use them? the real solution of course is to add a Replaces: or some such to dpkg, because it really does happen that things change names as they evolve. --phouchg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] The reader this signature encounters not failing to understand is cursed.
