Re: Gratuitous promotion of random binaries to standard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Please, give logical explanation. This
> tends to starve the flames, while providing information to the rest of us.
I think the real reason is that we want to keep the minimal (default)
installation small, and let the user to decide whether a program is useful
or not. This is part of the Debian philosophy: Let the user decide.
A friend of mine moved from Red-Hat to Debian some months ago. After the
install, he did a "df" and was gladly surprised of the little disk space
a "minimal" installation takes.
Perhaps we just need to split current optional in two:
* "famous, well known, GNU utility, etc."
* "not so famous, not so well known, and not GNU, and not etc.".
and give the user the ability to install easily the first set of packages
and not the second.
[ However, I don't want to open the "war of priorities", Installation is
already too complex to add one more priority. I, for one, would postpone
this discussion until Debian 2.1 ].
Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNM4dUSqK7IlOjMLFAQG9lwP+IojPrM0VSSICa/GiGuhLcvnkPkQc8Dou
4Zj7kKE7PEKW6iRdCnUF7vvk/OxPtIPM+/6bjckCEAG1rMN6hdADuOJ7ShenbJQi
EoCmsgKj+aJPTFUFUWuiDBLvxpXaBZrryeVvLVZnDoDCCfaSO29DsSbAmKcIVUAs
IEpDFGGswQc=
=6AZs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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: