Re: bashims in debian/rules
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Wed, 12 Nov 1997, Raul Miller wrote:
> Santiago Vila Doncel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Stupid question: May a virtual package have the "essential" flag?
> > If the answer is "no", and this is the *only* (technical) reason why we do
> > not have a virtual package named "posix-shell" to satisfy dependencies on
> > /bin/sh, then we should consider bash as non-essential.
> I'm not sure a virtual package should every be able to have a
> higher status than any of the real packages which fulfill it.
The point is that virtual packages have really *no status* at all, because
they have no control file, and they are not registered in the package
database. If you can't remove them, it is because you would fail to
satisfy some dependency.
So if we would really want to create a virtual package "posix-shell", we
would need (currently) another essential package to depend on it,
to prevent its removal.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .