Hi! On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:46:07 +0200 Adeodato Simó <d...@net.com.org.es> wrote:
> + Frans Pop (Wed, 20 May 2009 20:00:39 +0200): > > > On Wednesday 20 May 2009, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > > > Still using the minimal install example (without selection > > > "standard system" nor other task), shouldn't them have their > > > priority lowered then? > > > Possibly. But that is something that probably should have been done > > *before* lenny was released. I doubt the FTP masters would be > > willing to correct it now. > > > But that is where this issue should be reported: against the > > "ftp.debian.org" pseudo package; it is not a Debian Installer issue. > > No. The priority of the libraries is correct, at least correct > according to the ongoing policy "no package should depend on a > package of lower priority". That's why those libraries are in > important/standard, because some package there depends on them. So it seems that I will receive a "No, you are wrong" from #529657 :-( And just in case, with a daily-built Debian image, the list of libs without any packages depending on them (packages from a minimal Debian install) is: libconsole libgnutls26 libsasl2-2 libusb-1.0-0 And after their removal it's also possible to remove: libdb4.6 libgcrypt11 libasn1-3 libgpg-error0 Best regards, Nelson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
