Re: Trimming priority:standard
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:36:09PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> writes:
>
> > - make-guile. More of a question than a recommendation for a change,
> > but why is this standard and make optional, rather than the other way
> > around?
>
> Is this mostly about naming? GNU Make has guile-support by default, so
> I would say that 'make' should be with Guile and if desired for some
> reason, there could be a 'make-noguile' that is built without guile.
No, I think it makes sense for "make" to not have Guile support, and
"make-guile" to have Guile. That way, the version of "make" pulled in by
existing dependencies (and build-essential) does not guarantee Guile
support, and packages depending on Guile support must depend on
make-guile explicitly.
I more wondered whether the default version of Make in stanard should
have Guile support. However...
> A bigger question: is 'make' really necessary in priority:standard?
> Presumably anything requiring it will depend on it.
...I think this makes more sense: *neither* version of Make should have
priority standard. Bug filed.
> > - mlocate. We don't need a "locate" in standard; anyone who actually
> > uses locate (and wants the very significant overhead of running a
> > locate daemon) can easily install this.
>
> +1
>
> It is for desktops.
>
> > - nfs-common and rpc-bind. Anyone using NFS can install these, but NFS
> > is not anywhere close to common enough to appear in priority standard.
>
> +1
>
> Right now rpcbind is listening on the network in a default jessie
> install, and I don't like that.
Exactly.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: