Re: dc and bc in Important?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: dc and bc in Important?
- From: Bill Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970625082354.376A-100000@debian>
- In-reply-to: <m0wge8X-000AHTC@eos>
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.'' (126.96.36.199 of debian-policy 188.8.131.52)
> 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
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
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .