Re: Why do we need a base *section*?
On 2 Oct 1997, Sven Rudolph wrote:
> Vincent Renardias <vincent@waw.com> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Alex Yukhimets wrote:
> >
> > > > Why don't we create a new section called `system' to put init, etc. and
> > > > move all the shells, editors, interpreters, etc. to their proper section?
> > > > I found this confusing when I first looked at Debian.
>
> (This might be a good idea in order to avoid confusion with the base
> system.)
>
> > > I agree. Base install (from the floppies) does include packages outside of
> > > 'base' section anyway.
>
> And the base system contains files that aren't in base/.
>
> > If so, I think we should 're-organise' base; that is adding in this
> > section ALL the packages used by the boot floppies, and moving somewhere
> > else packages NOT used in boot floppies (cfgtool comes to mind)...
>
> This won't work.
>
> ftp is on the base system in order to be able to fetch packages
> (dpkg-ftp). ftp is part of netstd. It shouldn't be moved out of
> netstd, and netstd doesn't belong into base.
ok, let's add "...with the exception of packages of which the
boot-floppies contain only a fragment." ?
--
- ** Linux ** +-------------------+ ** WAW ** -
- vincent@debian.org | RENARDIAS Vincent | vincent@waw.com -
- Debian/GNU Linux +-------------------+ http://www.waw.com/ -
- http://www.debian.org/ | WAW (33) 4 91 81 21 45 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: