Re: Bug#14927: dpkg-perl should be marked essential
On Tue, 18 Nov 1997, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > However, I think it's a "policy decision": We've already decided to
> > include perl-base in our base system and tag it `Essential' so every
> > package can make use of the basic perl stuff without any dependencies. And
> > since dpkg-perl is so small and provides a really "clean" way to access
> > dpkg's databases, I don't see any disadvantage of tagging it `Essential'.
> > Any comments are appreciated.
> sounds like a good idea to me (especially the clean way for inst/rm scripts
> to access the dpkg databases).
> if it comes to a vote, i'm in favour.
Unforunately, I just discovered a major problem with this solution: If we
change dpkg-perl to be `Essential' and start using its libraries in the
preinst scripts, these packages won't install on systems that have not
installed dpkg-perl already. The problem is that the user will most likely
not know what is the problem, since Perl will fail with a `module xxx not
This would mean we'd have to use `Pre-Depends: dpkg-perl' anyways, so the
whole `Essential' discussion is somehow obsolete.
Any other ideas?
-- Christian Schwarz
Debian is looking email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .