Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.
On Tue, Mar 09, 1999 at 00:37:10 +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> My understanding was that the "base" package has now been obsoleted by
> other packages which provide the same functionality. Therefore the base
> package should be removable. The fact that it is obsolete and replaced
> means that it should be removable, even though it was "essential" in the
> past. But it doesn't clear its filelist, even though the files are now
> provided by other packages
Not quite. "base" still owns the device files (in systems created after
"base" was dropped, the device files aren't owned by a package), and perhaps
a few select conffiles in /etc .
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Reply to: