On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:07:23 +0200 (CEST) Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glenn McGrath wrote: > > I think we should be reduceing the number of required packages, not > > increasing them. > > You should consider the current dpkg/dselect status in sarge as the > first step of a two-step process. The purpose of the split is to > increase (in the long run) the freedom of dpkg/dselect users. In the > long run, people will be able to install dpkg and not dselect. This is > a freedom current dpkg/dselect users do not have (unless they rm dselect > manually, which would be a system abuse). > Yea, i can see in the long run it will simplify things, but sarge + 1 is a long way way, probably 3 or 4 years. > Since the sum of dpkg+dselect packages are the equivalent of the > previous dpkg package, it may be true that there is now one more > required package, but since the code is the same as before, it's not a > *real* increase. > Yea, i see what your saying, but from a different perspective, a package that doesnt have to be there is still an extra package. > Think about the current (incomplete) split as the step that will make > the second step possible (namely, when dpkg will no longer depend on > dselect, and dselect will stop being essential de-facto). > If it could be done safely in one step then im sure we can all agree that it would be better aproach. Glenn
