Re: dc and bc in Important?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: dc and bc in Important?
- From: David Frey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 23:13:49 +0200
- Message-id: <m0wgzNu-000AHTC@eos>
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 25 Jun 1997 08:35:10 PDT." <Pine.LNX.3.96.970625082354.376A-100000@debian>
On Wed, Jun 25 1997 8:35 PDT Bill Mitchell writes:
> On Wed, 25 Jun 1997, David Frey wrote:
> > 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.
Hmm? I thought to unconditionally mark all packages which include at
least one POSIX.2 program with `Important'.
I thought the long-term goal of Debian is to get POSIX-branded, so this
is in some form a must, isn't it?
> 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.
Yes, I agree. There are 2 possibilities:
1. break out the needed programs if the package is exotic, or
2. (IMO the better method) mark the whole package important.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .