Re: Packages file [WAS: Splitting Packages]
> > I don't see any problem to tag a package with "Priority: Essential"
> > instead tag it with a separate line "Essential: Yes"! Policy can be
> > followed in both way.
>
> Assuming that essential packages are always packages with the priority
> required, you are right ;) In practice, that's the case, in theory that's
> nowhere stated within policy.
>
Essential Packages don't need (should not have) a priority, since they
follow the essential tag and never the priority. So it's the same as if
the essential tag is priority = essential.
What would you do with an essential package with priority optional? Does
his mean such a package could be optionally installed but only removed
with force?
> But since priority and essential is something different in concept I would
> rather stick to the existing solution. Let alone the fact that the
> "Essential:" tag applies to only 24 Packages at the moment, so removing
> that tag wouldn't result in much gain besides confusion for the user.
>
Why are all packages decided by the priority except the essential? Why
introduce another concept if the current would suffice? Why not remove a
concept which is fully supported by a more generalized concept?
O. Wyss
--
Author of "Debian partial mirror synch script"
("http://dpartialmirror.sourceforge.net/";)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: