Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.
On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 02:35:31PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> 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.
No, the base-files package (effectively) provides those files. New bo,
hamm, slink and potato systems work without that package, therefore it is
not essential. It is essential not to remove it though!
> In this case I don't see why one should remove "base", other than
> making the system aesthetically nicer. Is this the real reason?
Perhaps it is -- I think it is a valid reason anyway.
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org