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

Re: dc and bc in Important?

On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, David Frey wrote:

> > ``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
> Correlated note: It is not explicitely stated in the policy manual, but 
> IMO we should flag all utilities mentioned in the POSIX.2 standard as 
> 'Important' [...]

IMHO, as long as the list is of manageable size, it'd be better to
explicitly list the "important" utilities instead of leaving this
as a judgement call to be made (differently) by each individual
package maintainer.

One complicating factor here is utility vs. package granularity.
For example: uuencode/uudecode are packaged with sharutils, and
ar with binutils. uuencode/uudecode and ar are on your POSIX
list, but other utilities in the packages which provide them
are not.

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: