Re: A proposal to fix breakage with Essential
Gregory Stark wrote:
> We should have an empty package called essential all packages
> explicitly declare a dependency on. Then when a package depends on a
> relatively recent addition to Essential it could include an explicit
> version dependency Depends: essential (> 1.1), ...
We don't make new essential packages very often. Policy says: "You
must not tag any packages essential before this has been discussed on
the debian-devel mailing list and a consensus about doing that has
been reached."
What new essential package are you talking about?
[ If you refer to coreutils, it's not really "new" ].
> This would solve the problem of packages depending on new packages
> with the Essential: yes tag that users haven't downloaded yet. In
> other words the "oh I have to run dist-upgrade today"
> problem. Currently there's no way for users to know that the reason
> packages are randomly failing (often in the configuration stage
> which breaks apt-get) is because they need to run dist-upgrade.
Perhaps you found a bug somewhere?
Reply to: