> > OK, so basically the only reason is that the regular fdisk and cfdisk do > not support GPT partition tables? > > In that case, I think we should _not_ add these udebs, for the following > reasons: > - we already have parted-udeb, which I expect _does_ support GPT > - the new udebs conflict with the fdisk/cfdisk udebs, but udpkg does not > support Conflicts: (design decision) > - the gnu-cfdisk udeb depends on ncurses, which is not acceptable > > Conclusion is that there is no real benefit in having these udebs, and a > quite a few issues/disadvantages with/of having them. > > I'd appreciate if you'd request the removal of the udebs yourself.
I don't understand it. The only "risk" I see, is the udeb Package file be coming fat. D-I won't fetch udebs it doesn't need, so no harm, no conflicts, no problems. I even think it is a good thing there is choice in the udeb section. High on my wishlist is an $EDITOR udeb [1], which allow/makes possible to do `anna-install $EDITOR` Where is the danger? If the answer is "People can do stupid thing unapproved udebs", then I raise this question: Could people be allowed to do smart things with udebs they choose? Cheers Geert Stappers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
