[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.

On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 01:20:46PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > 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 ].
> I agree that it is presently essential not to remove it. However,
> it serves no useful purpose; therefore it is not essential.

It contains lots of device files. It is essential.

If I make gzip.list a zero-lenght file, gzip could be made non-essential
also, and therefore we would not risk the system by removing it either.
[ We don't do it, of course ].

Having "base" in the system is completely harmless. Where is the bug,
exactly? That people want to remove it anyway because dselect says it is

Will people remove libc5 the day it becomes not part of the distribution
also, or does people usually check whether or not they need a package
before removing them (in the case of libc5, third party software, for

Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here, but I think it is very
important that we know exactly the reasons why we do things.

In this case I don't see why one should remove "base", other than
making the system aesthetically nicer. Is this the real reason?


 "b674cbc670892d768ad8f8f93dd12686" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: