Hi Neil, On moandei 19 July 2010, Neil Williams wrote: > This sentence in Policy 2.5 is too prohibitive: > "Systems with only the required packages are probably unusable, but they > do have enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to boot and install > more software." > > I would suggest a more open wording: > "Systems with only the required packages installed can be fully usable - > depending on the type of tasks expected of that system. The installed > packages still include enough functionality to allow the sysadmin to > boot and install more software." > > I have many systems with only Priority: required packages and a > selection of hand-picked packages from Priority: optional which are > fully usable systems - within the expectations of what such a system > can be expected to achieve, e.g. a NAS or mobile phone installation.
I think these examples are not great because you basically say that "required + a few hand picked packages" is usable, so "required" is usable. I still agree that the wording can be improved. But I would leave out the "fully" you introduce, because this is again a variation on the same problem: the subjectiveness of what constitutes a "usable" or "fully usable" system. How about just simplifying it to the following, without making any suggestions about its further usability. Describe in a factual way what it is, and leaves it to the reader to decide on whether they think this is usable. "Systems with only the required packages installed have at least enough functionality for the sysadmin to boot the system and install more software." Thijs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
