Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)

[Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Richard" == Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
>  Richard> Do we have a consensus that sash should be priority "important"?
> 
>         Could you synopsize for me why imporant is better suited than
>  standard? 

It's a matter of the definitions of both.  If the absence of a package
would make an experienced Unix person react with surprise and
annoyance, then it must be important.

We've found that the absence of statically linked binaries causes
experienced Unix persons to react this way (the thread comes up often
enough), and our answer is "We don't need to link stuff statically, we
have sash".  Therefore, sash should be important to fill this role.

Richard Braakman