[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: further package removals/potential package removals



On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 23:11 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 04:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 12:01 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > > Possibly joe also ought to go to extras nowdays.
> > Is there any wordstar compatible editor in Core?
> > 
> > To me, seeing joe removed would be a severe regression. >15 years of
> > using wordstar compatible editors can't simply be ignored.
> 
> So install it from Extras.  It's preclusion from Core will not cause a
> retroactive obliteration of every copy of joe in the known world, nor
> hinder you in the least from installing it whenever you want from
> Extras.
You are missing my point: Which packages to go into Core is subject of
personal perspective/perception.

FC contains a lot of packages I don't have much use for or care much
about, unless they conflict or cause damage. For those, I don't really
care much about whether they are part of Core or Extras.

However, one minimal requirement I impose on a distribution is having a
wordstar compatible editor. Therefore to me, removing "joe" from Core
without substitute, is more than "substituting on package by another",
it is crippling the distribution.

To put the other way round: How you would feel if somebody proposes to
remove vi or emacs without substitute? That's the situation I am facing.

> Why is this not getting through to people?  Is "extras" a synonym for
> "/dev/null" in half the world or something?  ;-)
Before it is implemented, to some extend yes ;-)

Of cause extras is not a synonym of /dev/null!

It's just that removing joe from Core to me means FC is going to deviate
from my demands and therefore means a step towards becoming less
attractive. 

Ralf



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]