Re: busybox_0.45-1_i386.changes REJECTED
On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 12:55:12PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> No one is against discussing it. It was already discussed with the people
> that matter.
Who are the people that matter?
> If it can't be installed, and it is documented as such in the
> package description, then I see nothing of how it affects the distribution
> as a whole.
I see introducing uninstallable packages deliberately as affecting the
distribution as a whole, and I maintain that it needs to be discussed
as such a matter.
> The only other alternative is to provide a source .deb instead
> of a binary package.
Why does it *have* to be a .deb?
(And yes, a source deb would probably be less intrusive.)
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % firstname.lastname@example.org % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%