On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Ray Rashif <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't see a need to 'settle' this one. You may not list glibc >> because it simply makes no sense to not have it at the time of >> installation. It can be as far deep down as F, but ultimately it is >> the packagers' (and community's) responsibility to incorporate >> dependency changes. As a community, changes like this are hard to >> miss. C getting out of B's dependency chain does not happen a lot. >> When it does, someone can report it. So we (should) stick to the >> simple(r) way - the current way. >> > > Um the current way is that everyone disagrees about what to do and then just > does whatever they feel like doing. --Kaiting. > > -- > Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/ >
In my opinion, we need to create another group called 'base-core' which will be guaranteed to be installed like base-devel is guaranteed to be installed when making a package. I think this should be the way to go because a lot of packages in base aren't really needed in a minimal system.
