Re: dc and bc in Important?
John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> It seems to me that dc and bc aren't vital to the workings of a
> system (when I deselect them, dselect doesn't warn about any
> dependencies), yet they are in Important. Why?
Because they match the first definition of Important in Policy (see
below). When I released my first version of bc/dc I downgraded them
to Optional by mistake and someone complained; that's obviously one
person who agrees with me. Does anyone else think bc/dc should be
downgraded? (If so, why?)
``Important programs, including those which one would expect to find
on any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an experienced
Unix person who found it missing would go `What the F*!@<+ is going
on, where is foo', it should be in important. This is an important
criterion because we are trying to produce, amongst other things, a
free Unix.'' (22.214.171.124 of debian-policy 126.96.36.199)
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .