On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 04:18:22PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [110404 19:22]: > > If login worked consistently in the face of the configured shell going > > missing (automatically falling back to /bin/sh for root), then I think it > > would be worthwhile to do the work necessary to remove bash from the > > essential set. But until then, the primary purpose of Essential, to me, is > > the "minimal set guaranteed to be usable" aspect, not the "you don't have to > > depend on it" aspect.
> I think it might be nice if those two aspects could be isolated somehow. > This could also reduce the size of some build chroots and the set of packages > any boot-strap code has to handle specially[1]. With all the essential > stuff only needed for a full system to boot, those are larger than they > needed to be. > I think > e2fsprogs > login > mount > sysvinit > sysvinit-utils > util-linux > and their dependencies (passwd, initscripts, the whole pam stack) > are mostly not needed in that set[2]. > (Util-linux might have one or two programs one might want to move > to another package then, and something for update-rc.d needs to be > done). I think this is a false optimization. How does reducing the set of packages in a buildd chroot help anything? A typical package has build-dependencies many times the size of the Essential set. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
