| 1 |
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:13:46 +0100 |
| 2 |
Bjarke Istrup Pedersen <gurligebis@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I was thinking, how about putting all log related packages into their |
| 5 |
> own category? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Personally I think unless there is a real problem that needs to be |
| 8 |
resolved, moving packages around should be avoided. We've been over |
| 9 |
the problems of the concept of categories many times, I don't see any |
| 10 |
value in going through it in depth again as categories are too deeply |
| 11 |
embedded to be changed. Suffice to say that any package is likely to |
| 12 |
have several reasonable categorisations, however the tree only supports |
| 13 |
one. Different people will prefer different categorisations according |
| 14 |
to each person's perspective, so moving packages to suit one perspective |
| 15 |
just messes things up for another perspective. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Maybe creating a logging herd would be an idea to, to remove the load |
| 18 |
> from the base-system herd. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Creating a herd is not a problem; obviously herds and categories are |
| 21 |
completely different things. However a quick scan of the |
| 22 |
logging-related packages in sys-admin shows they mostly do not belong |
| 23 |
to a herd, so are not imposing any load on the base-system herd as such. |
| 24 |
Creation of a herd for these packages would be a question for the |
| 25 |
maintainers of those packages :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives