On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:08:32 +0200 Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:14:57PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:04:10 -0700 > > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > > > > Frans Pop <elen...@planet.nl> writes: > > > > > > > Maybe we should consider changing the default prio for all > > > > library packages to optional or lower, except for specific > > > > cases (e.g. libc) where the lib itself can actually be > > > > considered part of the core system. > > > > > > I would make a stronger argument than that: how much do we care > > > about any priorities other than important, standard, and > > > everything else? > > > > It is very worthwhile having a clear division between Required and > > Important. A typical bootstrap should include Required but there is > > no need for any of the important packages > > If you want to have it minimal, install just the essential packages I > think was Russ' point. And/or possibly change/adjust essential so > that it matches what you say is required above. No, Essential has a different purpose (I've been picked up on this issue before) - we need to be clear about Essential vs required. Priority: required doesn't affect how other packages list their own dependencies, Essential does. Having said that, it is entirely possible to ignore Essential - Emdebian has been doing that since before Lenny without any problems. [0] It is even possible to ignore both Essential and Priority: required, if you are sufficiently careful, because this brings important benefits like being able to omit perl with just a suitably modified busybox package and a narrow package set. Essential doesn't matter when the user has no supported interface to apt - as with many embedded uses of Debian. [0] http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianPolicy -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
pgpO7Qn3kpB9B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
