Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 05:59:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > The idea would be to provide a real list, but also the rationale from
> > which the list is derived, so that whenever the list of build-essential
> > packages change, we just update policy accordingly, without changing the
> > spirit of it. How does this sound?
> I don't like the idea of going through the Policy change procedure every
> time we move something in or out of the required class. IMHO a list is good
> to have, but I'd like more to see it as a separate document, with only
> informative status and no weight of policy (so that when these two disagree,
> it's the definition in policy which is followed).
Well: Would a footnote be a good compromise between being it in a separate
document and being it in the same paragraph in policy? :-)
If it is properly worded, we should not fear about its weight.
> > Would not be easier to specify just "Priority: required"
> Possibly. I was under the impression that Essential: yes packages are
> guaranteed to be there in every Debian system, regardless of their priority.
> > on, say, Essential packages of extra priority not to be specified?
> Do we have such packages in the current distributions?
Currently, maybe not; but there were in the past[*], and I think the door
is still open for them (although I agree policy is not very well worded
in this respect).
[*] There was a package, I think, which replaced e2fstools. It was
essential because it was yet another version of e2fstools, and therefore
the packaging system should not let you to remove it, but it was not
required because everybody should be happy with normal e2fstools, and it
was not supposed to be installed in the system.
"848c33df24f488e0fe7fd3905ea86730" (a truly random sig)