Le lundi 2 juillet 2007 13:19, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:40:41 -0400, Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> > Le dimanche 1 juillet 2007 23:38, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 21:48:27 -0400, Filipus Klutiero
> >> I do not recall if currently such an installation contains anything
> >> out of optional or not. If not, then it is a pretty unusual
> >> installation -- most people generally add other packages to the
> >> standard ones to get a useable machine.
> >
> > When I wrote unusual, I meant the same unusual as the one in
> > policy.
>
> What are you talking about? I am reasonably familiar with
> policy, and the only statement that policy makes which talks about
> unusual is:
> ======================================================================
> `Recommends'
> This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
>
> The `Recommends' field should list packages that would be found
> together with this one in all but unusual installations.
> ======================================================================
>
> By no means does policy define what an unusual installation is.
>
> > In this context, installing a package which is usually not installed
> > does not turn an unusual installation into an usual one.
>
> I have no idea where you got this notion from, but it does not
> appear to be from policy. Care to provide provenance for this
> assertion?
Self-evidence. I don't intend to write more about this until you answer my
question.
