On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 05:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > The idea would be to provide a real list, but also the rationale from > which the list is derived, so that whenever the list of build-essential > packages change, we just update policy accordingly, without changing the > spirit of it. How does this sound?
I don't like the idea of going through the Policy change procedure every time we move something in or out of the required class. IMHO a list is good to have, but I'd like more to see it as a separate document, with only informative status and no weight of policy (so that when these two disagree, it's the definition in policy which is followed). > Would not be easier to specify just "Priority: required" Possibly. I was under the impression that Essential: yes packages are guaranteed to be there in every Debian system, regardless of their priority. > on, say, Essential packages of extra priority not to be specified? Do we have such packages in the current distributions? -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..." (Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
