Re: Why do we need a base *section*?
On Sat, 4 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
I can accept that someone may find a good use of the current setup. But I
still think that most users will benefit from the change.
We currently have two orthogonal systems of cathegorizing packages:
`section' and `priority'. It's a clean concept. There should be a big
reason to don't follow this with the base section and I cannot see it.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .