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

Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)

>>"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

 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: