On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 12:11:23PM +0100, jdd wrote: > Robert Schiele wrote: > > >So why do we need "base package set" at all? > > may be this package set don't have to be seen by the final > user, but it have to be defined not to have to duplicate > it's list in any of the situations we have already seen
Duplication of entries is not a severe problem if dependencies between packages are done in a reasonable way. Maintaining duplicate entries only becomes a real problem if you also add packages to the list that are not required for the use case by semantic reasons but only due to rechnical requirements (dependencies). For instance bash is often listed as being part of a minimal installation pattern for a normal system installation. This is wrong! For _using_ an installed system bash is not needed. It is obviously needed for some other packages to run their startup scripts and stuff like that. But this is solved by the other packages drawing in bash by dependencies. This also applies to glibc and more packages. If you list them explicitely you have made the mess yourself. > in fact this sub minimal list will be a dependency for all > the patterns, so will not have to exists visibly, but we > still need it here No, we only need it if we don't do the patterns in the right way as described above. Although people _know_ that dependencies are resolved automatically, according to the way they do patterns they have not yet _realized_ it. Robert -- Robert Schiele Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."
pgpgohBRs1jyG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
