[aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Thu Mar 23 07:30:34 UTC 2017

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:31:34 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
>nano (vi is the standard, and *I* don't even want to include that
>because vim)

For modern Linux distros nano has become a standard as well. What's bad
with providing it by base? Linux isn't UNIX from the 70s. I'm not using
reiser, but what is so problematic with including reiserfsprogs? It at
least was a Linux FS preferred as default FS for e.g. Suse a few
years back? It's idiotic to discuss such trivialities. Some prefer it
more old school others less old school. You are more old school but
that's not enough, you even want to discuss what belongs to the old


More information about the aur-general mailing list