On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 09:27:59PM +0800, Cindy Hsieh wrote: > It has been a policy of DistroWatch to list only default packages in > the tables. The "About" page has some more information on the > subject.
Thanks for the clarification. I read ``as was kindly pointed out to me by Bernhard Rosenkraenzer from Red Hat:"I believe the right think to do is to list the default version instead of the most current one (at least in the Qt case, we're shipping 38 packages that depend on Qt 2.3.x and no packages whatsoever that actually use Qt 3.0 - it's included primarily as a convenience for KDE developers." The trouble is that it is not always easy to figure out which is the "default" version by simply looking at the package list. Nevertheless, I will try to include default packages wherever I can.'' This may be an acceptable solution for RedHat, which has a different policy than the one we have at Debian, as well as different constaints. It is quite common in Debian to have alternative packages for different versions - some maintainers even provide alternative packages for CVS versions of some actively-developped pieces of software (Mozilla comes to mind). This means it is often difficult to even _define_ what "default version" would mean. If you decide to stick with the current behaviour, it would be much more useful to put a small note summarizing the issue on each distro's page, or users could just believe wrong things. Something like ``Please note that the versions listed here are those understood as "default versions" for the package, and that newer versions may be available in packages with other names'' Regards, -- Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.alcove.com/ Technical support manager Responsable de l'assistance technique Senior Free-Software Consultant Consultant senior en Logiciels Libres Debian developer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Développeur Debian
