On Wed, November 9, 2005 9:31 am, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Nov 8 18:13, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:52:20PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >> > >IMO, these packages should be in a special new category (I propose >> the >> > >name "@Profiles" to make setup put this at the top, but I don't know >> if >> > >setup will parse this correctly). I've attached a few sample profile >> > >packages for commonly requested configurations with the corresponding >> > >setup.hints. We could probably concentrate them all in one directory >> > >(thus the '@ ...' lines at the top of the hint files). All the >> .tar.bz2 >> > >files are the same empty tarball -- it's the setup.hints that are >> > >important. >> > > >> > >Comments and other suggestions welcome. Note that the attached >> packages >> > >are an initial cut at defining those profiles -- I'm bound to have >> missed >> > >something. Also, I'm not proposing to maintain *all* of the >> profiles, >> > >though I could maintain the ones I've attached, as there isn't too >> much >> > >work involved. >> > >> > Assuming that Corinna agrees, I'm willing to put these in a directory >> in >> > release. > > I like the idea. > >> > I'd like to get some consensus on the name "Profiles", though. Is >> that >> > adequately intuitive? >> >> That's one of the things I wanted suggestions on. > > The main problem is to get the user to notice that this is something > special. I had a long hard look into the chooser window and it's > not only that this meta category should come first, it should also > be an eye catcher by its own, IMHO. > > Therefore I'd like to propose an all uppercase name for this category. > > DEFAULT-PROFILES > USER-PROFILES
+1 on the caps... How about FUNCTIONAL-[GROUPS|PROFILES] USEFUL-[GROUPS|PROFILES] PRESELECTED-[GROUPS|PROFILES|PACKAGES] ? J.
