[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why debian on a handheld ?

>>"Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <bug1@optushome.com.au> writes:

 > On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:45:12 -0600
 > Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:

 >> >>"Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <bug1@optushome.com.au> 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   <srivasta@debian.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

Reply to: