Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional
* Neil Williams (email@example.com) [111015 22:23]:
> The problem with "Standard" is that it is currently (and heavily) biased
> towards multi-user servers and most of the replies in this thread which
> decry the absence of an MTA would appear to come from those principally
> concerned with servers. It just doesn't fit with desktop users or
> embedded users.
"Standard" is just another word for "what someone expect so it's
considered as normal unix", which *is* a multi-user server.
Perhaps the task isn't named perfect, but that's just what standard
> It appears to be based on an
> assumption that an experienced sysadmin will connect to the box and
> wonder where stuff has gone.
Oh yes, that's the definition.
> That *must* be context-sensitive - many
> routers are Unix / Linux - some may use .deb packaging systems (at
> least in the programming stage). Nobody would expect those to have ALL
> the packages from Priority: standard packages from the full Debian main
> archive. Debian is just too fat for that.
Nobody claims that. If you don't expect the standard unix things,
then don't install standard. End of story.
> The decision about whether some package is missing MUST be
The only packages which are must are required.