On Thursday 20 December 2007, Colin Watson wrote: > No, di-utils is already considered as the equivalent of Essential. > Plenty of stuff already uses it without a dependency (although there are > a number of dependencies anyway due to versioning). If we're willing to explicitly forego the requirement of versioned dependencies for this purpose, I'm more than happy to go along with you. I just feel that this particular change should not be a reason to add versioned dependencies to each and every other udeb that does not currently have a dependency on di-utils. Just the opposite: adopting this could be a very good opportunity to change a lot of existing explicit versioned dependencies into implicit dependencies and a formal elevation of the status of the "new" di-utils to an "essential" status.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.