Re: why debian on a handheld ?
>>"Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:45:12 -0600
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >>"Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <email@example.com> writes:
>> > Im sure weve all seen the threads over the years about trying to
>> > shrink base, while i would like to see it happen i think
>> > bureaucracy within debian makes it a very difficult task.
>> Do you have any pointer to that effect? As far as I am aware,
>> the base system is whatever people who code the base system want it
>> to be.
> Debians doesnt require dependencies in base to be declared, so if a
This happens not to be correct. The only packages that one
does not need to have dependencies for are essential packages; and
essential packages are those without which dpkg won't function.
> debian zaurus system didnt have base installed then packaging may break
> in strange ways.
Change that to essential packages, and yes, that is
correct. That is why they are called essential packages.
> I dont think there is much chance of getting debian proper to declare
> dependencies on base packages.
I wish you would actually research things out before making
blanket statements like this.
> There are base packages that may be considered bloat for a handheld.
This is irrelevant. The base packages are not required to be
present; I have several base packages not installed on my machines
(lilo, for one).
> Debian installer packages wernt allowed in the main archive with the
> .deb extension due to the fact that they deliberatly violate policy in
> the control files (or lack thereof) that they include.
Quite so. And how is this resistance? Indeed, technically
having a package with the same version that is meant to be a stripped
down, base install version, and another which is the full version,
would have been horribly confusing. Calling packages µ-debs is a
technical solution, not an expression of resistance.
> Changing the extension to .udeb and saying they are debian-installer
> modules rather than packages allowed them in.
Because they are not the full versions of packages, they are
stripped down or micro packages.
> I dont mean to discourage people with my negativity, i just want to
> point out that there may be a few extra obstactle along the way.
So far, your two examples seem to be founded on misconceptions.
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." "Ali Baba Bunny"
[1957, Chuck Jones]
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C