Re: Intent To Split: netbase
Adam McKenna <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Actually, Anthony posted a very good explanation of his reasoning
> behind splitting netbase when he announced his intent to split the
> package about a month ago. I suggest you go back and read it before
> calling him "dumb".
if this is what you're referring to:
I intend to split netbase into a plethora of little packages based
on how they're distributed upstream. The new netbase package won't
quite be virtual: it'll still include some bits of infrastructure
(like update-inetd, and /etc/init.d/networking), but it's main job
will be depending on all the real tools.
i've read it right after i tried to uninstall the packages i didn't
want only to discover i couldn't do it. so netbase was split upstream.
great, now i can install only the parts that i want. but i can't
because netbase still depends on all these packages. so i would argue
that this defeats the split upstream. moreover it introduces an
empty package. btw, i didn't call anybody dumb. an empty netbase
package is dumb though.
| I believe the moment is at hand when, by a paranoiac and active |
| advance of the mind, it will be possible (simultaneously with |
| automatism and other passive states) to systematize confusion |
| and thus to help to discredit completely the world of reality. |