On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:20:10 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which > actually are installed, "Installed and used actively" would be more interesting. Especially with regard to optional plugins, which perhaps are not loaded/executed at runtime automatically. For example, multimedia users follow instructions found on the web that lead to installing all codec packages, whether they need them or not. Watching statistics you might think "hey, there are WavPack or Musepack users", but maybe they never use files of that type. > but many problems also here: users privacy/opt-in, > easily spoofed, infrastructure. And it wouldn't force a packager in any way, maybe serve as some minor influence only. It would not be the first plugin/subpackage that has been discontinued during the lifetime of a distribution. If a package were considered "popular enough", the packager would not want to upgrade the software to a newer version that removes the package? There are other more important factors when considering a version upgrade. And probably most important, you cannot get an obsolete package to reinstall automatically once it would become available again. User would need to take notice and reinstall manually (unless packager plays tricks or makes it a new requirement). -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
