Re: Intention to change priority of console-tools

[Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>]

Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > For example, if I lose the dpkg executable I can download it by ftp,
> > uncompress it by using ar and tar, and put it in /usr/bin.
>
> That's really rather different than using alternative means to access a
> system or work around a broken keyboard or whatever.

It's not so different. It would be an "alternative" way to install dpkg.
Very often, Unix allows doing things in several ways, all of them with
the same result.

My point is that "becoming a real PITA for most people if missing" should
be a reason enough to keep the required priority of a given package.

Several people said that there might be people who does not need
console-tools. I fully agree, but that is a reason to not make it essential
(it's not essential). Not a reason to downgrade it from required.

The definition of required does not say that you *will* not even be
able to use dpkg. We all agree that there are cases where you can use
dpkg without console-tools (for example, if you can access a system
from outside). But for "you may not even be able to use dpkg" to be
true, it's enough to consider that there is a lot of people who can't
access the system from outside.

Moreover, the definition of "important" is focused on the Unix world
("what you would expect on a Unix system", "what an experienced Unix
person would say if missing"). People using a desktop computer do not
expect a working keyboard because the system is Unix-like, they expect
it to work regardless of the operating system, which is a more
fundamental expectation.