Frederik Rousseau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I really think aptitude should only show end user packages with >> decent, readable, localised names ("Apache Web Server", "x Chat (IRC >> Client)", "Infrared Control for XMMS"). At the moment the user is >> completely overwhelmed by the list of packages, which is not helped by >> the fact that each one comes with a dozen or more libraries, >> extensions, and so forth. > > Some people like Ian Hickson don't want to see package names like libgtk2.0. > But _I_ want to see this, I am sys admin and want to know exactly what I am > putting on _my_ systems. > > Just one of the reasons why I like GNU/Linux ... I know what I'm doing! > > Anyway, does this mean we need something like a GNU/Linux Debian and a > GNU/Linux Debian For Dummies showing only icons?
It probably means there should be a configuration option in aptitude to hide sections like devel, libdevel, libs, and interpreters, since end users typically don't care (and 90% of the time I find myself not caring, too). Perhaps suggesting to new users that they look in the "tasks" section of aptitude would help reduce the package overload, too. I don't think we need to abandon the power of our current infrastructure, just have ways of making it less visible for people who don't want it. -- David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/ "Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal." -- Abra Mitchell