On 14/01/12 23:54, Elias Pipping wrote:
So we have yet to hear an argument against removing busybox from the
system set.
What was the argument for removing busybox again? I can remember nothing but
just a very academic one ("no actively using it"; I guess you would remove the
airbag from your car, if you've never been in an accident, as well? Just to save
weight?).
If that is everything, I'm still going to vote for the more practical solution,
which is: Keep it.
I mean really, what is the point of removing it? Just to have a few MB freed
from your disk? If that means so much to you, maybe Exherbo with all of those
headers installed by default is just the wrong distribution for you?
Still, if you still think that it really really should be removed, maybe the
stages solution is an acceptable compromise.
It would be possible to define an 'emergency' or 'rescue' set, which gets
included in world in the stages for packages just like busybox. That way, its
purpose is well defined and we can see the name in a 'you have been warned'
manner for users that still want to remove it for whatever reason. Just not sure
if we want sets included in a default world, although I don't really see a
problem with that.
@zlin: A stages set makes sense, imo.
_______________________________________________
Exherbo-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
