Dennis Kaarsemaker dennis at
Mon Sep 26 05:01:28 CDT 2005

On ma, 2005-09-26 at 11:41 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On 9/26/05, Dennis Kaarsemaker <dennis at> wrote:
> > I have made a few of these packages (which are definitely not good
> > enough to be included, but merely serve as examples) at
> > . Is there any reason not to adopt such a
> > system?
> At the first glance I spot only binary .debs. These are mostly
> worthless to us, you must provide source packages, as we only do
> sourceful uploads.

Only the first section of that page is about the meta packages. They do
containa few references to non-ubuntu-packages, but even without those,
e.g. the multimedia packs are still useful.

The rest of that page is setup as a service to others, unrelated to this
proposal. Maybe a link to would
have been better.

> Moreover, better write in your next email which meta packages you
> propose and why do you think there are useful.
> espc. I don't understand the benefit of ubuntu-devel over build-essential.

A few that would be really helpful

ubuntu-multimedia-(kde|gnome) - To save users a lot of hassle with
ubuntu-lamp - popular setup which raises questions all the time
ubuntu-devel - to get started with ubuntu development

See the contents of the latter at
to see the benefits over build-essential.

I can see lots more opportunities for this, grouping software that is
related to each other in this way makes finding software easier.

But let me repeat that these few metapackages are merely examples and
definitely not ready yet (they still include references to w32codecs for

Dennis K.
  - Linux for human beings:
  - Linux voor normale mensen:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list