Robert Millan wrote: > > Also, there are things in important that are necessary for d-i and > > tasksel to work *at all*, including aptitude, > > What's wrong with 'apt-install aptitude'?
It's not in the patch you sent.. (It would also need to install tasksel.) > > debian-archive-keyring, and > > gnupg (and even tasksel). > > Are you sure about these two? apt has Depends on them, but they're > superflous (I verified that, see #452640). I don't know about D-I. debian-archive-keyring is not supurflous; apt's copy of the keyring is out of date (containing only the 2005 and 2006 keys, no key for stable, and no key for volatile) and should be removed. > Yes; for every new option that is added, there's a chance it breaks things. Um, that's a tautology and doesn't address what I said at all. The problem is not a case of adding a new option that might break something, it's a case of adding a new highly vsible option that is *known* to produce a system too broken for most people to use. > If you think that is very likely, why not allow it via preseeding? A base-installer preseed that allows passing arbitrarily parameters to debootstrap would be fine. Tasksel would not need any changes to support that. Other parts of d-i might need changes, to deal with tasksel not being installed. > I did actually consider that. But out of 61 packages I can see in sid, I only > see 3 that would _really_ be necessary to garantee a non-broken system (the > ones you mentioned before, minus ifupdown which is already dragged in by > netbase). > > Considering this, and also that the description for "important" overlaps > with the description for "required" (see #452393), and that I proposed to > resolve this contradiction in favour of "required", I think it's much more > feasible to handle those 3 packages than handle the rest. The good reason to move junk out of important (and standard for that matter) is that doing so actually benefits the majority of debian installs. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
