Hi there,
Here is my problem: I've always disliked section "base", as being an
artificial set of packages otherwise belonging to standard sections
(utils, admin, etc.).
I cannot find a reason currently for its existance, nor can I find a
reference to it in the Policy and Packaging manuals.
I once believed it was of use to the system initial install, and hence
tightly related to boot-floppies. However, I was recently told:
Adam Di Carlo writes:
> that tag is ignored by us (boot-floppies team).
>
> > Or can't we just rely on the choices made by the boot
> > team ?
>
> You have to. I'm here to make sure we make the right choices.
...so this explanation does not hold (any more ?).
Can someone present a reason for this ?
If there is a reason, I'm strongly in favor of this being written
somewhere (so that I do not ask this again in 2 years ;), and we
should find another way ("Base" tag ?) to handle this piece of info
that is orthogonal to package sectionning.
If there's no (more) reason, I strongly suggest we throw this ugly
thing ASAP, and I'll be happy to be one of the first to do so with my
packages currently using this "section".
--
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://www.altern.org/ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
