On 29 May 2002, Philip Hands wrote: > Does anyone have other candidates for a move, or reasons not to move any > of the packages mentioned above?
These are the popularities in decreasing order: xserver-xfree86 475 90 41 0 kdelibs3 338 63 42 0 kdebase 274 29 2 6 mozilla-browser 268 44 245 0 gimp1.2 252 151 70 0 emacs21 250 20 9 0 emacs20 232 94 16 0 gnome-applets 198 58 100 0 tuxracer-data 48 123 11 11 emacs20-dl 41 5 1 0 xfonts-base 19 197 8 594 xfonts-100dpi 11 181 5 578 erlang 6 36 2 0 xspecs 0 0 0 210 timidity-patches 0 0 0 321 libopenh323-dbg 0 0 1 0 doc-linux-text 0 0 0 659 aspell-pt 0 0 0 10 aspell-fr 0 0 0 29 aspell-es 0 0 0 15 aspell-de 0 0 0 47 aspell-da 0 0 0 11 The first number is the number of people in the popularity contest who use the package regularly. Hmm, I wonder why doc-linux-text has priority standard at all, when so few people use it regularly... Anyway, I would drop all the aspell packages, plus libopenh323-dbg, timidity-patches, xspecs, erlang and emacs20-dl. In case the TeX task would still not fit, it would not be such a disaster if we put tetex-bin, tetex-base and tetex-extra in the first CD and the remaining of the TeX task in the second CD. [ tetex-bin is used regularly by 715 people in the popularity contest ] Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
