On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 02:06:59PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote: > > Nice post - did you sumit the proposal ? I vote "for". > > I asked what people thought and got no responses until now. But yeah, I can > make a formal proposal; please second. As it stands, policy says: > > 2.3.6. Base packages > -------------------- > > The packages included in the `base' section have a special function. > They form a minimum subset of the Debian GNU/Linux system that is > installed before everything else on a new system. Thus, only very few > packages are allowed to go into the `base' section to keep the required > disk usage very small. > > Most of these packages should have the priority value `required' or at > least `important', and many of them will be tagged `essential' (see > below). > > You must not place any packages into the `base' section before this has > been discussed on the debian-devel' mailing list and a consensus about > doing that has been reached. > > Since Adam tells us this is no longer true and the boot-floppies team > decides what goes in the base system, and since we seem to have a consensus > that the base section is then unnecessary, policy needs to be updated. > > Since other parts of policy refer to "the base system", we still need some > definition of what that system is, or quite a few paragraphs (see end of > this email) would need to be changed. Here is one way we could reword policy: > > | 2.3.6. The base system > ---------------------- > | > | The base system is a minimum subset of the Debian GNU/Linux system that is > installed before everything else on a new system. Thus, only very few > | packages are allowed to go into the base system to keep the > | required disk usage very small. > > Most of these packages should have the priority value `required' or at > least `important', and many of them will be tagged `essential' (see > below). > > You must not place any packages into the `base' section before this has > been discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing list and a consensus about > doing that has been reached. I don't think the last 3 lines need to remain in policy. Any issues with removing them? Otherwise this sounds good to me. -- - Joseph Carter GnuPG public key: 1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43 - knghtbrd@debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 7 * * * echo "...Linux is just a fad" | mail billg@microsoft.com -s "And remember..."
Attachment:
pgpngPndxxstf.pgp
Description: PGP signature