Re: Why do we need a base *section*?
[Nicol_s Lichtmaier] said:
> On Fri, 3 Oct 1997, Scott Barker wrote:
> > I agree. However, the "base" packages could be put into more appropriate
> > places, then the "base" directory could be populated with symlinks to all the
> > packages needed for "base".
> Ok.. that would be better. But, why do you need those symlinks anyway? =)
It is sometimes useful to know which packages are required by the system. I
often install just 'base' and a couple of other packages for minimal router
http://www.mostlylinux.ab.ca/scott/ (under construction)
[ I try to reply to all e-mail within 3 days. If you don't ]
[ get a response by then, I probably didn't get your e-mail. ]
[ Unsolicited commercial and junk e-mail will be proof-read for US$100 ]
"It is well to remember that the entire population of the universe, with one
trifling exception, is composed of others."
- John Andrew Holmes
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .