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

Getting rid of section "base" ?

Hi there,

Here is my problem: I've always disliked section "base", as being an
artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
(utils, admin, etc.).

I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manuals.

I once believed it was of use to the system initial install, and hence
tightly related to boot-floppies.  However, I was recently told:

Adam Di Carlo writes:
 > that tag is ignored by us (boot-floppies team).
 > > Or can't we just rely on the choices made by the boot
 > > team ?
 > You have to.  I'm here to make sure we make the right choices.

...so this explanation does not hold (any more ?).

Can someone present a reason for this ?  

If there is a reason, I'm strongly in favor of this being written
somewhere (so that I do not ask this again in 2 years ;), and we
should find another way ("Base" tag ?) to handle this piece of info
that is orthogonal to package sectionning.

If there's no (more) reason, I strongly suggest we throw this ugly
thing ASAP, and I'll be happy to be one of the first to do so with my
packages currently using this "section".

Yann Dirson    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://www.altern.org/ydirson/      | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: