[aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?
eschwartz93 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 23 13:33:02 UTC 2017
On 03/23/2017 03:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 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. Also, 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
Because you are either an idiot or being deliberately unhelpful?
You may not have realized, but the post you are replying to was arguing
for a defined minimally bootable runnable operating system. What Suse
used as a default FS is so completely irrelevant you should win an award...
Also, stop discriminating against emacs and Atom, which by the same
logic also belong in base because "stop being so old school".
(I really didn't realize that there was *anyone* who considered the
objectively horrible nano a standard. Almost any other editor ever,
aside from MS Notepad, is better in every respect.... Did anyone else
ever hear of this?)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general