Re: Submitting bugs ? (Was: Getting rid of section "base" ?)
- To: Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Debian Developers <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Submitting bugs ? (Was: Getting rid of section "base" ?)
- From: Richard Braakman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 22:23:08 +0100
- Message-id: <19991205222308.B2520@xs4all.nl>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100
- References: <email@example.com> <19991128233212.A2995@xs4all.nl> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Yann Dirson wrote:
> base-files admin ? misc ?
> base-passwd admin ? misc ?
I think we can keep a section named "base". Some packages, like the
above, as well as the kernel packages, fit naturally into that section.
We just drop the rule about its connection with the boot-floppies.
> ldso admin ? libs ?
I'd say libs. It is the ueber-library.
> mbr admin ?
It doesn't seem to fit well anywhere. Perhaps misc, or just leave it in base.
> ncurses-base libs ?
libs, admin, or base.
> setserial utils ? admin ?
utils, I think. It's similar to the stuff in util-linux.
> gettext-base libs ?
> libnet-perl interpreters ? net ?
Either is fine. Perhaps we need a perl section.
> isapnptools utils ?
> pcmcia-cs utils ?
> pcmcia-modules-* utils ?
Perhaps leave these in "base" too.