Ben Armstrong wrote: > I don't see any particular reason to suggest apt-cacher over, for example, > approx which appears to me to be in better health than apt-cacher, which was > recently removed from testing and re-added again a few days later, which has > 34 outstanding bugs against it, 4 of which are 'important' and range from 98 > to 263 days old, and which has not had a new upstream release since May. > Approx, by comparison, is actively being developed upstream and has just 3 > active bugs (though admittedly these numbers are probably skewed by > apt-cacher being the older and better known of the two packages, and is not > necessarily indicative of package quality.)
ack. > Anyway, the point is, how do you decide which package to "suggest" if several > might provide the same functionality, each with its own distinct advantages > and disadvantages? Perhaps all of the alternatives should provide a virtual > package, e.g. Provides: apt-package-proxy? ack. i think, this should not be handled with suggests, but with documentation. i plan to do dummy-documentation soon, and include all the different possibilities to safe bandwith. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
