On Tue, Nov 17, 1998 at 11:20:11PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Although it is out of context, let me quote something from the social > contract I feel appropriate here: > > We Won't Hide Problems
How do you equate removing packages from the distribution that cannot be installed as is to a 'problem'? If anything, it is a problem having packages in a distribution that cannot be install with out the user getting some things on their own, to new users this is a royal pain in the ass. Not hiding problems doesn't mean not fixing them. Imagine if you were installing Solaris, and you got into the nifty gui install and started going thru the software and you see this nice program you want install....click it....pop....a screen comes up telling you that that software needs a package which you do not have and to go to the ftp site to get it....and oh yeah, you probably wont be able to get it legally...."wait a second"..."my system isn't even setup yet and they want ME to go and get a package so that this program works? WTF!?" If they have a CD/install of some kind that is missing a restricted library we should not asume that they can go and get it, since that is why it is restricted in the first place, hence, if it depends on something not there, leave it out. Now if it suggest the restricted package, I don't see that as a serious problem, but depends is something else. -- ----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- -------- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
