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

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Thu Mar 23 17:21:52 UTC 2017

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:33:02 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
>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 school.  
>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
>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?)

It's not a standard, don't be that childish and polemic. You are able
to understand what I tried to say in the context of my mail and this
discussion. You insult nearly everybody who posts something to this list
and arch general. You nearly always belittle others. Nano has become
"sort of" a standard, a very common editor, for very good reasons.
Seemingly this is also the reason that nano is part of "base". Your tone
of voice is shameful. There's nothing wrong if "base" includes tools
that are required for several file systems, even if you dislike those
file systems. Nano doesn't come with a GUI and is easy to use,
self-explaining and good enough to edit a config. Vi(m) is complex, not
that easy to use. However, this becomes off-topic and you are anyway
well aware of the facts, you just like to provoke.

I am sorry for you!

More information about the aur-general mailing list