Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 02:06:47AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Furthermore, it occurs to me that the problem isn't just essential
> > packages. If libc6 fails to work during an upgrade, we're equally bad
> > off, but libc6 isn't essential. So, the proposal is not only
> > ambiguous and redundant, but misdirected as well. Only the fact that
> > it's harmless (because it's redundant) keeps me from formally
> > objecting. :-)
> How about coming up with something better then?
Better how? The situation with bash is already a bug, so we don't
need to change policy to deal with that. So what is it you're trying
to accomplish? What is it you really want?
Here's a thought: the system should actually *pre*-depend on packages
that are required by the packaging system itself. But essential
packages are treated (at least by dpkg) as universal dependencies, not
If we fix *that* one, then the bug in bash magically becomes
not-a-bug, and the whole need for this proposal disappears, just like
Better to fix our internal bugs than to enshrine them forever in
policy. Essential packages *should* be able to use the alternatives
system without exploding.
So, maybe better would be to file a bug against dpkg, not policy.
Chris Waters email@example.com | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or firstname.lastname@example.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.