Your message dated Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:30 +0200
with message-id <200410041125.30408.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
and subject line Bug#272406: reassign?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Sep 2004 20:02:46 +0000
>From aragorn@tiscali.nl Sun Sep 19 13:02:46 2004
Return-path: <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Received: from 195-240-184-66-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl (elrond.fjphome.nl) [195.240.184.66]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1C97tV-00020l-00; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:02:46 -0700
Received: from strider.fjphome.nl ([10.19.66.86] ident=fjp)
by elrond.fjphome.nl with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1C97t0-00060L-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:02:14 +0200
From: Frans Pop <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Base-config installs way to many packages
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 22:02:14 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200409192202.14747.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: debian-installer
Version: 20040918
Not sure which package this belongs to...
I did a testinstall for unstable using i386 netboot.
During tasksel I selected 'manual package selection'. In aptitude I was
presented with a list of packages that would be installed (I presume
packages that had been selected by default).
These included:
- lib64gcc1, lib64stdc++6, amd64-libs (11MB!)
I don't have a 64-bit system, and I don't have an amd processor, so I
really don't want these installed.
- libdb2, libdb4.0, libdb4.1
Of which only libdb4.1 is needed (by vacation).
Note that libdb3 and libdb4.2 have already been installed during
base-installation because op dependencies.
- libcrypt7, libcrypt1, libcrypt11
libgnutils7, libgnutils10, libgnutils11
Of these only the '11' variants are needed by other packages.
- Of the compiler-related packages, both version 3.3 and 3.4 were installed.
Conclusion
IMHO we should be a little smarter about what we install by default.
At least (development) libs should only be installed if they are pulled in
by dependencies.
Also, I think we should exclude some packages, like ipchains (which is
obsolete) and lib64gcc1 (which for some reason is in base, not libs).
Maybe even doc-linux-txt should be excluded because of it's size (8MB).
Also, it would be very nice if an update of vacation to use a more recent
version of libdb would be allowed.
A note by the maintainer in #256571:
> > using libsb4.2 would help me too, no other package uses libdb4.1 on my
> > system.
> > Is there any problem with recompiling against 4.2?
> vacation is frozen (other than being useless), so you would have to
> persuade the RM to allow a new upload in testing.
Hmmm. As even the maintainer thinks it useless, we could also exclude it :-P
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 272406-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Oct 2004 09:25:58 +0000
>From aragorn@tiscali.nl Mon Oct 04 02:25:58 2004
Return-path: <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Received: from 195-240-184-66-mx.xdsl.tiscali.nl (elrond.fjphome.nl) [195.240.184.66]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CEP6T-0002Lz-00; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:25:57 -0700
Received: from strider.fjphome.nl ([10.19.66.86] ident=fjp)
by elrond.fjphome.nl with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1CEP5x-000822-00; Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:25:25 +0200
From: Frans Pop <aragorn@tiscali.nl>
To: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>,
272406-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#272406: reassign?
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:25:30 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <[🔎] 20041003214907.GA10108@kitenet.net>
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20041003214907.GA10108@kitenet.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200410041125.30408.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Delivered-To: 272406-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
On Sunday 03 October 2004 23:49, Joey Hess wrote:
> I forget, was a bug opened on ftp.debian.org about the priorities, or
> should this bug be reassigned to there? Or can we close it?
A bug was submitted to ftp.debian.org.
See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=272586
So I guess this one can be closed.