[Grml] Accessibility versus Packages

Christian Hofstaedtler ch at grml.org
Sat Nov 5 14:22:47 CET 2011

* Konrad Schrempf <mail.110 at versibilitas.at> [111105 08:41]:
> Hi,
> even if I don't need the discussed accessibility-packages,
> they seem to me much more important than other packages.

You're missing the point: accessibility is a feature, not just
a collection of packages. As already stated, the current Grml
developers do not have hardware, expertise, or need to support
this feature (in fact, it seems it was half or fully broken in
previous releases).

To let this feature live, someone who actually has hardware,
expertise and interest in this feature needs to step up and maintain
it in Grml. *Maintain*, not just implement and then hand it over to
bitrot. This must be an ongoing effort, or it's worthless.

A feature that's broken every other release is not something people
can depend on - in fact, if people actually rely on this feature to
DO ANYTHING AT ALL with Grml, then it is not affordable to have this
broken at any time. As soon as it's broken in one release, blind users
can no longer rely on Grml to do their work.

As currently no one can handle this effort, we felt it was necessary
to officially acknowledge this. Now that people actually *show*
interest, something good might come out of this.
> As an example I remind on the discussion about TeX/LaTeX some
> time ago. Unless almost all of the packages are provided it
> is necessary to install some more. So it is the same to install
> all of them later.

This is something completely different - shipping some TeX packages
means additional space constraints; making Grml useful to people who
otherwise could not use it is more than a list of packages.

> For me the main point is to have that kind of running system
> to be able to extend it later.
> I like GRML very much for all the nice programs in textmode.
> Sometimes I use X11, with a lot of xterms running ...
> Is it really necessary to provide a graphical VIM? The use
> of the *-register should also be possible (as a compile-option)
> in standard VIM.
> For cease-fire reasons you would have to remove the graphical
> Emacs too ;-)
> What's about packages like cowsay? I find it funny but I could
> live without. GRML could still recommend some of these programs
> by providing a list with interesting examples.

Make no mistake: *everything* that has been included in the past
is under review.
There are already proposals of package lists floating around that
will produce a much smaller ISO.

Bottom line: features are much more than sets of packages; do not
confuse them.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ml.grml.org/pipermail/grml/attachments/20111105/47661cec/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Grml mailing list