Re: Will woody ever become stable?
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:32, Jules Bean wrote:
> 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.
>
very funny.. Try reading the context sometime.
I meant it should be _in_ standard, that would take it down from base where
it is now. Ofcouse the difference between standard and optional is not one I
would argue too much on. But standard is (AFAIK) defined as programs a user
would EXPECT on a unix platform. I just consider myself a user.
-Allan
Reply to: