Re: Will woody ever become stable?
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 12:00:36PM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2002 11:53, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 07:31:04PM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> > > 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.
So the criterion for packages being base are 'Allan Jensen expects
it'? :-) I'm a little confused, actually, since the copy I have here
at work (potato machine) is Priority: optional, Section: utils.
Perhaps there was a good reason for the move to base that I'm not
aware of? Perhaps it is more necessary on some other platform than
i386? I know I've never used fdutils at all in my 6 years of linux
usage...
Jules
Reply to: