Hi.
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 06:25:33 -0800,
on Subject: Re: base dependency warning,
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's also current policy. I tacked it on only for reference. I'm not
> accepting amendments that change that paragrpah, because I am only ch
>It's also current policy. I tacked it on only for reference. I'm not
>accepting amendments that change that paragrpah, because I am only changing
>a prt of policy to document existing practice, but you're quite welcome to
>make your own proposal.
I would, but I'm too busy saving the world.
Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >>You must not place any packages into the `base' section before
> >>this has been discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing list and a
> >>consensus about doing that has been reached.
>
>
> This last is unclear and wierd. In fact, it is only the boot-floppies
>
>>| 2.3.6. The base system
>> --
>>| The base system is a minimum subset of the Debian GNU/Linux
>>| system that is installed before everything else on a new system.
>>| Thus, only very few packages are allowed to go into the base
>>| system to keep the required disk
> Since Adam tells us this is no longer true and the boot-floppies team
> decides what goes in the base system, and since we seem to have a consensus
> that the base section is then unnecessary, policy needs to be updated.
>
> Since other parts of policy refer to "the base system", we still need
Hi.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
at Mon, 20 Dec 1999 14:06:59 -0800,
on Re: base dependency warning,
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since Adam tells us this is no longer true and the boot-floppies team
> decides what goes in the base system, and since we seem to have a consens
On Mon, Dec 20, 1999 at 04:04:09PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I don't think the last 3 lines need to remain in policy. Any issues with
> > removing them? Otherwise this sounds good to me.
>
> Removing them changes who is responsible for that. That's worth a seperate
> proposal, I think it might
Joseph Carter wrote:
> I don't think the last 3 lines need to remain in policy. Any issues with
> removing them? Otherwise this sounds good to me.
Removing them changes who is responsible for that. That's worth a seperate
proposal, I think it might be too controversial to tack onto this one, whi
8 matches
Mail list logo
