[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dc and bc in Important?

John Goerzen <jgoerzen@gesundheit.cs.twsu.edu> 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.'' ( of debian-policy


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: