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

Re: dc and bc in Important?

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.

(Comments welcome)


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: