In general, I like the names and descriptions better than what we have currently. However, I see a problem with the criterion for "getting something into common". It is likely that some maintainers will take it as an insult to have their package "demoted" to common, and to
> I'd think a restriction something like ``all `common' packages must > be included in at least one task'', which means they only get to be > common if they can convince one of the task maintainers to include > their package. I might be tempted to respond with: Package: task-steveg-favorites Depends: ddclient, jargon, cern-httpd Now of course that's rather silly, not to mention completely in-approrpriate, but given the current growth in task packages and the resistance to Joey's clean-up proposal, I can see it happening. We might well end up with the ftp maintainers stuck having to apply overrides, which will make good sense to most of us, but lead to cries of censorship and cabal from those affected. No, I don't have a better solution right now, just picking holes. steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)
