Re: Feaping Creature-ism in core Debian Packages
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Please, cut down the quoted material!
>
> On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 08:39:10AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Care must be taken that these Essential packages can be built using only
> > Essential packages, or does this not seem necessary from your POV?
>
> Are you saying that gcc should be Essential?
Surely not in the quoted sentance ;-)
First, making it clear that we _are_ talking about source dependencies
here and not binary ones, yes, I would consider make, gcc/egcs (i.e. a
compliant compiler of C code), binutils, to mention a few, as being pretty
essential to the construction of almost any package.
To me, the destinction between Essential, and Important, is that Essential
packages are ones you can hardly ever live without, while Important ones
are not required but for several instances where they are essential. (i.e.
when an Essential package depends for its construction on another package,
that depended-upon package at least becomes Important, and possibly
Essential)
Why did you ask this question, anyway ;-) The statement that sparked your
reply was only a question, after all...looking for the answer for
determining what priorities are needed and what packages represent which
priority. For my two cents, I would say that gcc/egcs would be pretty
essential packages for building most of the Debian distribution. Don't you
agree?
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: