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

Re: Intent To Split: netbase

There's no need to cc me on -devel mails.

On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Alex Romosan wrote:
> > > making netbase an empty package which can be removed is the goal,
> > > isn't it?
> > No. Making it easier to keep uptodate with upstream, making it easier
> > to support Hurd, and giving away some of the bits of netbase is the goal.
> but there is nothing left in netbase except for some configuration
> files (/etc/protocols and /etc/services which should belong to the
> inetd package? /etc/gateways and /etc/rpc) some man pages (which
> should also be moved) update-inetd and DebianNet.pm. if the goal is to
> keep netbase then maybe you should change the dependency on the new
> packages from Depends: to Suggests:. i would like to remove ipchains,
> ipwfadm, ipmasqadm, ipautofw but i can't. surely the netbase package
> as it is now doesn't need to depend on them, no?

Well, if you wanted half the people running unstable to just blithely
upgrade and have all their firewalling disappear, you could remove the
dependencies, I guess.

Dependencies will start getting rearranged in a month or so, I guess.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpNqzY4pHLIK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: