Re: New virtual packages suggestion
At 1996-07-25 16:29 +0000, Guy Maor wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jul 1996, Michael Shields wrote:
>> Shouldn't all non-cosmetic bugs [in buzz] be fixed?
>No, only serious bugs and security holes. Otherwise there would be no
>difference betweem rex and buzz. The definition of 'serious' is a bit
>vague (basically a bug that most people agree is a major inconvenience)
>but gzip providing a compress link definitely doesn't qualify.
I must have misunderstood buzz. I thought it would continue to be
developed in parallel to rex, fixing all non-minor bugs. Examples of such
bugs are perl not installing correctly and traceroute not working with a
1.2 kernel, both of which are easily fixed.
If there isn't a tree that is as bug-free as possible, then I'll have to
create a giant symlink farm myself containing pieces of rex and buzz in the
most stable combination, and I really don't want to do that. Wouldn't it
be better if everyone could benefit from such a tree, and we called it