On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 02:36:09PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> writes: > > > - make-guile. More of a question than a recommendation for a change, > > but why is this standard and make optional, rather than the other way > > around? > > Is this mostly about naming? GNU Make has guile-support by default, so > I would say that 'make' should be with Guile and if desired for some > reason, there could be a 'make-noguile' that is built without guile.
No, I think it makes sense for "make" to not have Guile support, and "make-guile" to have Guile. That way, the version of "make" pulled in by existing dependencies (and build-essential) does not guarantee Guile support, and packages depending on Guile support must depend on make-guile explicitly. I more wondered whether the default version of Make in stanard should have Guile support. However... > A bigger question: is 'make' really necessary in priority:standard? > Presumably anything requiring it will depend on it. ...I think this makes more sense: *neither* version of Make should have priority standard. Bug filed. > > - mlocate. We don't need a "locate" in standard; anyone who actually > > uses locate (and wants the very significant overhead of running a > > locate daemon) can easily install this. > > +1 > > It is for desktops. > > > - nfs-common and rpc-bind. Anyone using NFS can install these, but NFS > > is not anywhere close to common enough to appear in priority standard. > > +1 > > Right now rpcbind is listening on the network in a default jessie > install, and I don't like that. Exactly. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140912164158.GA3271@thin
