On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 02:50:14AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 20 December 2007, Colin Watson wrote: > > No, di-utils is already considered as the equivalent of Essential. > > Plenty of stuff already uses it without a dependency (although there are > > a number of dependencies anyway due to versioning). > > If we're willing to explicitly forego the requirement of versioned > dependencies for this purpose, I'm more than happy to go along with you.
All that's required for that, IMO, is for the new di-utils to propagate to testing before any dependent changes are made elsewhere. (Though versioned dependencies are a useful record, and don't have a huge cost; unlikely to consume more than a kilobyte uncompressed, I'd expect, which seems well worth it for their mnemonic value.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
