Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.
On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 11:45:35AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > base was not "essential in the past".
> > base is still essential now for people who have it installed.
> It is only essential now because removing it would hose the system.
> It is othrewise unimportant; base-files and base-password provide
> the exact same functionality.
> IMHO, it is not essential.
This is contradictory. If removing it would hose the system, then it has a
good reason to be essential.
The fact that new systems do not have a package named "base" does not mean
this package is not essential for systems having it installed.
[ Proof: Remove it and see what happens ].
"381d3f823a9f38fff1d4383f5e6bfd8b" (a truly random sig)