Re: New package split of util-linux
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 11:03:08 +0200
- From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: New package split of util-linux
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:18:46AM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> I'm looking for help with ideas about a new package split for the
> util-linux suite.
> Currently the main binary packages are:
> (Then there are a bunch of other less important binary packages also
> All of the three above packages have the Essential: yes control field
> set. This basically means when ever upstream writes a new tool and we
> decide to ship it, it instantly becomes part of the essential set.
> I also don't see any real reason for the mount package to be separate
> from the util-linux package.
But why should mount be Essential? It's useless in containers and chroots.
> In short, I'm considering a new package split to be needed.
> If people have ideas or suggestions about this package split I'm
> interested to hear them.
What about making the split at different levels of essentialness? With the
new Important: yes (not be confused with priority: important), this makes
three levels, and thus three packages:
* stuff that's needed on every Debian system
* stuff needed on every bare-metal box / "real" VM
* things you can go without
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ What Would Jesus Do, MUD/MMORPG edition:
⣾⠁⢰⠒⠀⣿⡁ • multiplay with an admin char to benefit your mortal
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • abuse item cloning bugs (the five fishes + two breads affair)
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ • use glitches to walk on water