Re: Shrinking the "base" section
Yann Dirson <dwitch@monge.univ-mlv.fr> writes:
> As I could not find something about the "base" section in the manuals
> (though I'm quite convinced I already saw something on that), I raise
> this question, wich maybe concerns only a few packages:
>
> When a package has been but into the "base" section because it
> contains among others some specific files which are needed in "base",
> and the amount of files in this package which are not needed in base
> would justify to throw them out of base, what should be done ?
>
> More specifically, I guess such a package (namely 'kbd', which I
> happen to maintain) should be splitted to spare some space on the
> install boot-floppies.
(I'll comment this from the boot-floppies point of view.)
> If it is done, is there some policy on how to package that, and how
> to name those packages ? [I remember there was once both "perl" and
> "perl-base", but don't know the reason for this split, neither for it
> not to be here any more] Should the part in "base" conflict with the
> rest, which would stay as it is, except for the section-change, or
> should the rest depend on the part in base ?
For perl this caused big confusion and tiny bugs, so it isn't used
right now. A workaround is in place ...
For your case: How much space will be needed for kbd? Which files do
you plan to add to kbd?
In general the size of base isn't critical. Most people don't install
base from floppies anymore. And I could use better compression on the
floppies (bzip2). And even without this I have 0.6 MByte free right
now ...
Sven
--
Sven Rudolph <sr1@inf.tu-dresden.de>
http://www.sax.de/~sr1/
--
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: