Hi,
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 13:39:45 -0400, Filipus Klutiero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
It most certainly is not self evident. If you have nothing
concrete to add, I consider this discussion done.
manoj
--
So live that you wouldn't be ashamed to sell the family parrot to the
town gossip.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
