Re: Intent To Split: netbase
On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:47:34AM -0400, Decklin Foster wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > Well, if you wanted half the people running unstable to just
> > > blithely upgrade and have all their firewalling disappear, you could
> > > remove the dependencies, I guess.
> > The argument for getting rid of all the stuff still lying around in
> > netbase is that once the package really is a dummy ``this-only-exists-
> > so-that-people-can-upgrade-easily'' package, then it can be removed,
> > getting rid of the dependency on what the user doesn't want to
> > install. Right now we can't do that, which I what I think Alex's point
> > was.
> No. The point of splitting netbase isn't in particular to do away with the
> package. Just because that's what happened to netstd and xbase doesn't
> necessarily mean it'll happen again. I've no plans to make netbase not
> exist anymore.
I do hope that you'll consider changing some of the Depends: to
Suggests:. For example, I don't generally want portmap to be installed
on servers I deploy.
* Kurt Starsinic (email@example.com) ---------- Senior Network Engineer *
| `The future masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and |
| intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.' |
| -- Marshall McLuhan |