Re: Will woody ever become stable?
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 11:53, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:31:04PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > To try to contribute something myself, looking at base, we have:
>
> How about a review of what's in base and standard?
>
> > fdutils 96845 106576 111089 121713 serious patch
>
> Is fdutils really a base package? (Despite being section: base
> it has priority: optional.) I wouldn't have used any of those
> tools in a year or more myself. Does it need to stay in base?
> Optional or maybe even extra would seem more appropriate.
>
It something I would expect, that would make it standard.
> > slapd 112499 grave
> > slapd 126898 grave
> > Maintainer: Wichert Akkerman
> > I don't pretend to understand LDAP, so ...
>
> There's an LDAP server in base? It has priority extra.
> My sid system seems to be working perfectly without it.
AOL
>
> > texinfo 111563 115229 serious patch sid
>
> What's this doing in base? I just purged it here without
> issue (nothing else seems to depend on it).
True, but I would still expect it in a unix system, so standard
>
> Standard...
>
> > armagetron 123131 serious
>
> Games in standard? That are holding up the release?
AOL
>
> > pydb 127408 grave
>
> Why's there a python debugger in standard?
AOL
>
> > ssh 127575 grave
> > Maintainer: Matthew Vernon
> > ssh-keygen stuff. Patches probably wouldn't do any harm.
>
> Seems like a good candidate for base -- no doubt it has more use
> than fdutils.
AOL.. Still a debian system *could* be setup without network.
>
> > tk8.3-dev 113162 grave
>
> -dev package in standard?
Good point
-Allan
Reply to: