[csw-maintainers] Alternatives without automatic selection

[Philip Brown]

On 12/3/10, Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org> wrote:
> This is an original way to say: if the features of a current product
> aren't complete and adequate do not use it. I don't think that in the
> real world that you like so much this is an acceptable attitude. Or is
> it?

I think it is more accurate to say, "some 'features' cause more
problems than they solve, so adding every requested 'feature', is not
always the best path".
This is a very "real world" practical attitude, that most software
companies follow.



>> Or, just go with whatever the maintainer prefers as "top" priority,
>> and presume the user/admin will use the --set option if they have a
>> different opinion on order.
>
> In the original post the case was exactly what the maintainer wants: to
> set the same priority for a set of packages. What's different here?

There is a difference. I describe "maintainer choosing a specfic order".
What you describe is, "maintainer refusing to choose a specific order".
Same priority == lack of order.

another word for "lack of order" is "chaos", btw :)

>> Order of install is often not an explicit priority-based choice, but
>> effectively random. So having a sticky selection based on "first
>> installed", is not a good policy.
>> User would be better served knowing with certainty, "if I have both
>> pkgA, and pkgB installed, then pkgB will ALWAYS get priority.. unless
>> I override with --set"
>> Rather than have to remember, "oh dont install pkgA, unless you've
>> installed pkgB first!"
>
> Well, in this case you lean toward deserving a part of the user
> base.


I did not understand your comment