[csw-maintainers] Alternatives without automatic selection

[Peter FELECAN]

Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> writes:

> 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.

You speak from experience or just perusing a common preconception?

>>> 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 :)

"chaos" is very often a misnomer employed by the unaware.

>>> 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

I mean that you propose a rigid behavior where a more flexible one
serves better the user.

By the way, I'm always wondering who's the real user of our work: the
system administrator, the end user, Philip Brown, &c ?
-- 
Peter