On 28/08/13 04:37 PM, [email protected] wrote: > On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 06:04:33 -0300 > Ben Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, the intended purpose of live-tools is to provide tools that must >> behave differently in a live environment as alternatives for the >> standard ones, or else other tools providing live-specific features. >> The packages you propose, while useful, are not in that category. > > I don't really see how perl and rsync can be regarded as "live-specific > features",
They aren't. We're talking about the intended purpose of live-tools itself, aren't we? It's dependencies aren't the features, or even the tools themselves. They are merely things the package needs to provide those features and tools. Is that clearer? > Since you agree that it would be beneficial to have lvm2 and mdadm (and > parted?) included in the desktop ISO images, then surely the easiest way > to accomplish this is to just list them as dependencies of live-tools. Easy, but wrong, because that's not what live-tools is for. And I didn't say that I agree that they should be included in the desktop ISO images. I agreed merely that the packages are useful. (In case you thought I was saying they aren't.) However, I can think of tons of useful packages that could be included in the images, each of which could be rationalized the same way "it's useful, and it's only a few meg; what objection could you possibly have?" > Alternatively, create a new pseudo-package called "task-live" which > pulls them in, and have that included in the build via either > "live.list.chroot" or "standard.list.chroot", which are in all the ISO > build lists. > > What objection could there be to that? Why task-live? What makes these "live" things. I'm just not seeing it. Ben -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
