Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Tue, Aug 24, 1999 at 09:24:14AM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> > >       Proof: Much of this portion is opinion; but I challenge you to try
> > >              adding a policy statement to the contrary.
> > 
> > The contrary is NOT that Debian should not support such servers at all. The
> > contrary is that it should not support them by DEFAULT. This IS already
> > written in policy, read the definitions of the "required", "important" and
> > "standard" priorities in section 2.2. 
> 
> I know what the contrary is. Take your definition of the contrary, and 
> do what I challenged: have it added to the policy. Something like this:
> 
>     Debian should not by DEFAULT be useful as a server which requires
>     high uptime, or which is administered remotely.
> 
> I don't think many would support that, but you are advocating that 
> this should be Debian policy when you insist that it not be the 
> default, no matter how negligible the cost.

this is bullshit.

if you want to run a web server, you install a web server package and
configure it.

if you want to run a proxy server, you install squid and configure it.

if you want to run a mail server, you install an MTA and configure it.

and so on.

similarly, if you want a bunch of static binaries and sash as your root
shell, then you install the appropriate packages and configure them.

this is one of the purposes of a packaging system - to enable the
creation of a general purpose operating system with an enormous range of
*optional* uses/configurations.

what you want can be more than adequately catered for by the provision
of optional packages - there is absolutely no need to make YOUR
preferred configuration the default.

why is that so difficult for you to understand? 

craig

--
craig sanders