Would it make sense to mark known to be broken packages in the packages list?
-
There are a variety of packages in the available packages list that are known to be busted, e.g. stunnel
It's rather easy to screw up a setup by installing a broken package, so it might be useful to have some sort of warning when a package is known to be busted.
-
Kind of a catch-22 there. If we disable them, there's no way for someone to install and troubleshoot/debug them. Also they may work for some people and not others, or they may work for people who are willing to take extra manual steps before they work.
It might be good to change their status to "Possibly Broken" but someone would still need to pay attention to that field for it to be effective.
-
Kind of a catch-22 there. If we disable them, there's no way for someone to install and troubleshoot/debug them. Also they may work for some people and not others, or they may work for people who are willing to take extra manual steps before they work.
It might be good to change their status to "Possibly Broken" but someone would still need to pay attention to that field for it to be effective.
Right, that's why I said "mark" not "disable" or "hide". Basically, anything that alerts a user that they are entering potentially troubled territory would be good. At that point one can peruse the forums to see why things are marked, and decide if one wants to proceed or not.
e.g. vhosts works fine, it just doesn't display properly on the dashboard.
Other things are more dangerous.
-
If something is completely and totally broken, it should be disabled. I'm not aware of any packages currently that are completely broken. General stability of packages is noted by their status: alpha, beta, stable.
