Re: Override changes standard -> optional
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:11:08PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > The policy definition of 'standard' is:
> > These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
> > character-mode system. This is what will be installed by default
> > if the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include
> > many large applications.
> > It's difficult to see how any of these packages fail the *definition* of
> > standard.
> Its difficult to see how any of these packages fulfill the *definition*
> of standard.
Er, no. They all fit within the definition of a "reasonably small
character-mode system" and are not "large applications", which is the only
definition that has to be met for the packages included in standard.
Everything else is a question of what the project /wants/ to see installed
by default.
> The definition is wide enough to let us discuss without end.
You're the one who made the claim that:
> We currently can't see any of the packages living up to the policy
> definition of standard.
So if you don't want objections to such claims, don't make bogus claims in
the first place that these removals are grounded in Policy.
> >> strace
> >> mtr-tiny
> > I think these are useful troubleshooting tools that we ought to install by
> > default. mtr-tiny is the only traceroute tool included in standard
> > currently.
> I could buy that for mtr-tiny, but which average user can do anything
> meaningful with strace so that it needs to be in standard? If you need
> it you have bug, and the average user will report that $upstream
> (debian, developer, wherever). And can then install it if asked to
> strace something.
Having the tool available by default means one less step that users need to
follow in order to debug.
> > For comparison, both of these packages are part of the Ubuntu standard
> > system.
> Thats not really convincing, we are in debian-devel after all :)
<shrug> Ok, let Ubuntu have a more useful default install then, I'm sure
that attitude won't cost Debian any users at all.
> >> tcsh
> > tcsh is still a commonly used login shell in some environments.
> Some. Not really far. At least IME. Also, while it might be in use, does
> it need standard? Its easy to install an extra shell. And the system
> doesn't get unusable by it not being standard.
Removing any of the following packages from standard does not make the
system unusable, and it's easy to install any one of them. What
distinguishes tcsh from all of these other packages?
at
bc
bind9-host
dc
dnsutils
file
ftp
lsof
m4
mailx
mpack
mutt
patch
pciutils
pidentd
reportbug
telnet
time
w3m
whois
I, for instance, have never used dc. Should I campaign for its removal from
standard for this reason, or should the contents of the standard system be
based on consensus?
Hmm, come to think of it, we ought to replace the 'ftp' package in standard
with something more usable, such as lftp or ncftp...
> >> For the time right after the release we also intend to move ispell,
> >> iamerican, ibritish, wamerian and dictionaries-common down.
> > Why? I don't think that's justified at all.
> In that case I want igerman in standard too. Why should standard only have
> english lists?
Because there should always be *some* list installed by default, and
wamerican is the only sensible default as the list that most closely
corresponds to the C locale.
It should be possible to select another word list *instead* of wamerican if
the user has configured a different locale, but wamerican still belongs in
standard as a sensible default.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: