On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 03:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 12:47:34AM -0400, Decklin Foster wrote: > > Anthony Towns writes: > > > Well, if you wanted half the people running unstable to just > > > blithely upgrade and have all their firewalling disappear, you could > > > remove the dependencies, I guess. > > The argument for getting rid of all the stuff still lying around in > > netbase is that once the package really is a dummy ``this-only-exists- > > so-that-people-can-upgrade-easily'' package, then it can be removed, > > getting rid of the dependency on what the user doesn't want to > > install. Right now we can't do that, which I what I think Alex's point > > was. > > No. The point of splitting netbase isn't in particular to do away with the > package. Just because that's what happened to netstd and xbase doesn't > necessarily mean it'll happen again. I've no plans to make netbase not > exist anymore.
I do hope that you'll consider changing some of the Depends: to Suggests:. For example, I don't generally want portmap to be installed on servers I deploy. Peace, * Kurt Starsinic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---------- Senior Network Engineer * | `The future masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and | | intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb.' | | -- Marshall McLuhan |