Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/16: New source package format

[James Troup <J.J.Troup@comp.brad.ac.uk>]

Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> writes:

> I think this topic (choosing packages which were supposed to be
> installed) has come up before, and there was a list of packages
> floating around; however, choosing required, important, and standard
> packages should also do it.

But as you say, that's 133 packages, which is too much IMHO.

How about this?

binutils bison cpio cpp debmake debhelper dpkg-dev ed file flex gcc
libbfd libc-dev make patch perl

Or a minimalist list like:

binutils cpio cpp dpkg-dev gcc libbfd libc-dev make patch perl

Both assume all required and essential packages.  Personally, I prefer
the latter.

This also came up in July, but still nothing has been done about it.
makeinfo and texi2html currently reside in tetex-bin, which means
large portions of base would Source-Depend: on tetex.  I don't think
that's a Good thing.

(Hmm, Manoj, why does make depend on libelfg0 for i386? It doesn't for
m68k and appears to work)

-- 
James