:) 100% agree.
Because now we are in limbo to manage changes related to these packages.

Stef

> stéphane ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
>
>> So I know that some of you are against having mc in the basic
>> image
> I'm not - in fact I was trying to get around to a mail suggesting that
> MC should be included in Basic. Since Basic is the de facto developer's
> image (at least until we get to a stage where a real kernel exists that
> can be built into configurations easily and reliably and by anyone) it
> seems that it should have the important tools already installed and
> ready to go.
>
> I claim that MC is important enough that it should be considered a 
> basic
> tool as much as the file content browser, the protocol browser etc.
>
>
> tim
> --
> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
> Strange OpCodes: CSD: Charge Surreptitiously to DOE
>
>