configuration of base packages revisited

2001-07-16 Thread Joey Hess
A while back Anthony Towns wrote: > Hrm, actually I turn out not to have a choice. > > lilo depends on logrotate > logrotate depends on mailx > mailx depends on exim | m-t-a > > I don't think I can reasonably not include lilo. :) I think this is fixed in unstable as of today. Lilo dropped the l

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-27 Thread Joey Hess
Anthony Towns wrote: > Hrm, actually I turn out not to have a choice. > > lilo depends on logrotate > logrotate depends on mailx > mailx depends on exim | m-t-a > > I don't think I can reasonably not include lilo. :) Gar. Both of the first 2 dependancies seem very shakey. And damned annoying. I

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-27 Thread Joey Hess
Anthony Towns wrote: > Would it make any sense to drop exim (and cron and at and mailx) from > important to standard? If you'd go "what the fuck?!" about them being > missing on a real system, does it make sense that you wouldn't go "what > the fuck?!" when you found they were missing from your n

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-26 Thread Ethan Benson
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 10:03:10PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:54:24AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > (I expect plenty of people will be picking other mailers, and > > those in the know might be grumbling at debootstrap for insisting on > > downloading a mailer they immed

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-26 Thread Anthony Towns
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:54:24AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > (I expect plenty of people will be picking other mailers, and > those in the know might be grumbling at debootstrap for insisting on > downloading a mailer they immeditaly replace..) Hrm, actually I turn out not to have a choice. lilo

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-25 Thread Anthony Towns
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 12:54:24AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Hm, this is really your call as the maintainer of debootstrap, but an > alternative way to look at is it debootstrap could just be responsible > for installing enough packages to let base-config set up a full base > system. Hrm. Well,

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-25 Thread Joey Hess
Anthony Towns wrote: > > Is there no way to have a package be priority important and skipped by > > tasksel? [ Meaning debootstrap not tasksel, but I think you figured that out. ] > :-/ > > I'd like to be able to automatically determine what to download and > install from the Packages file as fa

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-25 Thread Joey Hess
Randolph Chung wrote: > > Mailx does meet the criteria for important very well though. > > > > Is there no way to have a package be priority important and skipped by > > tasksel? Um, I meant to say by debootstrap. Ignore me. I think tasksel is doing exactly the right thing. -- see shy jo --

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-24 Thread Randolph Chung
> Mailx does meet the criteria for important very well though. > > Is there no way to have a package be priority important and skipped by > tasksel? How about if we change the semantics of the -r and -i flags of tasksel so that it only marks a package for install if it doesn't conflict with a p

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-24 Thread Joey Hess
Anthony Towns wrote: > It's priority important, and other important packages depend on it, in > particular mailx and at. I guess all three of those could be dropped to > standard reasonably. Maybe. ? Mailx does meet the criteria for important very well though. Is there no way to have a package b

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-24 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 03:38:32PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Ethan Benson wrote: > > man-db would be a good one, otherwise users never get the opertunity > > to turn on caching. > > Man-db is another one that any sane use of tasksel or dselect will pull > in automatically, so I don't think debo

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-24 Thread Anthony Towns
On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 02:48:48PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote: > I'm wondering why it was added to base. I understand it's > priority standard and the default debian MTA, but... It's priority important, and other important packages depend on it, in particular mailx and at. I guess all three of

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-24 Thread Joey Hess
Ethan Benson wrote: > man-db would be a good one, otherwise users never get the opertunity > to turn on caching. Man-db is another one that any sane use of tasksel or dselect will pull in automatically, so I don't think debootstrap need bother with downloading it. -- see shy jo -- To UNSUB

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-23 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 08:52:12PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I'm trying to remember when exim got configured in potato installs. Was > > > it even installed as part of the base system back then? Could someone > > > with a te

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-23 Thread Joey Hess
Adam Di Carlo wrote: > Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm trying to remember when exim got configured in potato installs. Was > > it even installed as part of the base system back then? Could someone > > with a test machine do an install and check? > > Yes, it would stop and ask you

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-23 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > there was no MTA installed in the base system until now. i remember > because i never had to --purge exim when installing postfix on new > installs, unless i ran dselect and forgot to fix it there. No, I think you're right. In fact, http://http.us.deb

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-23 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 02:21:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Hmm. I think we should have base-config reconfigure some of the base > packages, anyway. I'm not so sure about all of them. We already > reconfigure some, like console-data and passwd. man-db would be a good one, otherwise users neve

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-23 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm trying to remember when exim got configured in potato installs. Was > it even installed as part of the base system back then? Could someone > with a test machine do an install and check? Yes, it would stop and ask you on postinst, IIRC. -- .Adam

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-23 Thread Joey Hess
Adam Di Carlo wrote: > > Now, the problem. There does not appear to be any obvious time in > > which the base packages are configured. For example, I am never > > asked how to setup exim so that email works correctly. This needs > > to be fixed before the release. Should we have base-config >

Re: configuration of base packages

2001-06-22 Thread Adam Di Carlo
Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, the problem. There does not appear to be any obvious time in > which the base packages are configured. For example, I am never > asked how to setup exim so that email works correctly. This needs > to be fixed before the release. Should we have bas

configuration of base packages

2001-06-22 Thread Matt Kraai
Howdy, First, I was able to install using the 2.3.6 i386 compact boot-floppies. The only non-standard thing I had to do was edit the sources.list to refer to woody instead of stable. It looks like this will be fixed once a new base-config propogates into woody (and be even better with the next