On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:56:13 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've considered it, but again, have not found that useful for someone > who is looking at a package listing on the web. I may still add it, > but "hidden" by default using styles, so clicking on a "[+] show > dependencies" link will unhide it -- possibly the same with files. The > concern is -- how much larger will that make the html files? There are > packages with a gajillion bajillion files and dependencies. I think > having a way to list files and dependencies from a package manager > interface would make more sense. And I could argue it would make more sense to be able to browse via a package manager... via the same logic you just used here... thus removing the need for this sort of webpage altogether. I have no problem with the dep info normally being hidden by default for the web pages in an effort to not overwhelm the casual user. But the dep info is valuable information to browse through at a central location, as valuable as package name browsing depending on you goals. Some segments of the userbase do actually care about what deps get pulled in. When looking for applications that perform a function, knowing if it needs mono or java or kde or gnome or whatever does actually matter sometimes. -jef
