On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:42:38 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: >The problem that I have with this argument is that it seems to imply the >situation is improved for that embedded system if some random minority of >Debian packagers explicitly declare the dependency on bash, while most >continue not to do so. I don't see a lot of justification for that >implication. Unless a reasonable percentage of the archive has the >dependency expressed correctly, the embedded system is going to have to >deal with this in some other way. A small handful of developers adding >explicit depencencies is not going to be meaningful assistance.
Agreed. The rule needs to be reversed. >Put another way, supporting removal of bash is something that we'd have to >do as a project. Right now, we've made a conscious decision to not >support that. A small handful of developers adding explicitly >dependencies creates some other (mostly minor) issues and seems very >unlikely to substantively change that situation. Agreed as well. Greetings Marc -- -------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! ----- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1oslqs-0006et...@swivel.zugschlus.de
