Hi. I like Fabien's idea of "user can choose a Small and Lean Debian, or a Big and Resourceful Debian" :)
# well, I should go to -policy and express my placet for your proposal. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 18 Oct 1999 18:16:58 -0700, Philippe Troin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >This is what I believe are acceptable "pure data" packages: > > > > 1) Data which is absolutely required for a program to work. > > This should not go in data! See the proposal for that! I think that Philippe said in his message that "He thinks the acceptable pure data packages conforming to the following (his) conditions will belongs to main". > Data proposal let main be smaller than even now (by let it remove some > themes, lg issues, some special formatted docs, extra packages, etc), > while still offering choice to people who want the big set. It also > let the mirrors choose between mirroring a Small and Lean Debian, or > a Big and Ressourceful Debian. Currently, there no easy to do that > (you would have to distinguish between standard packages and extra/optional > one). All that without restreigning Debian in any way. Again, I like this idea. If we can, we should provide the option for users. Well, I think we just simply can not do everything that we like to do, maybe we can not afford lots of Giga byte class packages currently. # I don't know what the future technologies bring us. But I think the consideration for each package to or not to be included into our archives is better than general bureaucratic prohibition. If the size is important factor, it is useful to have some guidelines or references for the size of packages, such like "If the size of your package go over 10MB (or 100MB or 1GB or bigger of even smaller value we consider apropriate), then you should consult other members before you upload it" Then we can know that package and discuss about it. -- Taketoshi Sano: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
