Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)
>>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <email@example.com> 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
You can get everything in life you want, if you will help enough
other people get what they want.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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