Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)
Hi,
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
Richard> It's a matter of the definitions of both. If the absence of
Richard> a package would make an experienced Unix person react with
Richard> surprise and annoyance, then it must be important.
Richard> We've found that the absence of statically linked binaries
Richard> causes experienced Unix persons to react this way (the
Richard> thread comes up often enough), and our answer is "We don't
Richard> need to link stuff statically, we have sash". Therefore,
Richard> sash should be important to fill this role.
Ummm. I must say that I am not comletely swayed by this line
of reasoning -- I have been using unix for a dozern or so year now,
and I have never seen sash anywhere. The presence of sash is unlikely
to prevent the surprise at not having static binaries (aside: I wonder
if digital unix also had statically linked binaries?), since one
would not be looking for sash as a replacement.
standard would get sash on most platforms. I would prefer
stronger reasons to make anything important (priority bloat is to be
feared).
manoj
--
You can get everything in life you want, if you will help enough
other people get what they want.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: