On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 08:37:39 +0500 Lev Lamberov <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd like to request your input on #776413. It is concerned with the > priority of the ed package. There are two conflicting requests. Some > users request ed to have priority "optional", other users request it to > be "important". Please, take a look at the discussion in the mentioned > bug report (and also in the related one, #416585). > > Some time ago (see, #416585) the priority of the ed package has been > changed to "optional", but ed is still a part of POSIX standard. For me > personally the main issue here is the interpretation of "Unix-like" in > the Debian Policy: "Important programs, including those which one would > expect to find on any Unix-like system."
It has taken a lot of time and a great deal of effort to reduce the size of "standard" and "important", involving detailed bug reports, explanations, and package-by-package argumentation. And it makes sense to carefully evaluate historical packages to determine if there's some argument for including them, because in some cases it's debatable. This is not one of those cases. popcon data shows that almost no one actually uses ed; it is simply installed and takes up space. Anyone who actually wants to use ed knows how to install it, just as they could any other editor of choice. vim-tiny is part of the base system already, and in addition to providing vi it also provides ex. Just because a tool's behavior is specified by a UNIX-related standard doesn't mean it should be shipped in important/standard. Make is specified by the same standards, and it is in "optional".
