On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > We're not _removing_ anything, we're providing an integrated system.
>
> in this cotext, it seems that upstream galeon _includes_ those
> bookmarks (redhat, slackware, et al). to _remove_ those bookmarks is a
> _removal_ for non-technical reasons.
>
> iff upstream has no such bookmarks, (ie: cnn, msn, aol), then we have
> absolutely no need to add them.
>
> iff upstream had _no_ bookmarks at all, then we can add those that we
> deem as important for _our_ users (www.debian.org, packages.d.o, et al).
>
>
> i see a _big_ difference between value added, and value removed for the
> purposes of branding.
>
>
> to clarify: if the bookmarks stay or go, i will not argue. it is up to
> the maintainer, and i will happily abide by his decision. when asked for
> my opinion (which, i was) i am of the opinion that arbitrarily removing
> them serves no useful purposes. putting them in a Other Distros leper
> colony sub-menu would be fine. ensuring the Debian bookmarks were above
> the others would be fine, too.
>
> change for changes sake should be minimised.
>
Personally, if upstream thought it was a good idea to have a bookmark, then
the package maintainer should consider keeping it, even if it is under a
submenu. I like the idea of moving to a simple uniform bookmark list, but
I think it would be a good idea to preserve maintainer approved upstream
bookmarks somewhere easily accessible. (By maintainer approved, I mean the
maintainer should be able to arbitrarily decide, taking into account any
bugs filed against their package).
Drew Daniels
