Re: essential packages and Pre-Depends
sanvila@unex.es (Santiago Vila) wrote on 16.02.98 in <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.980216222233.1846A-100000@cantor.unex.es>:
> Believe me: I thought the gzip case was similar to any other essential
> package, because on Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:01, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Packages that are Essential (ie, ones without which the packaging system
> > breaks) should use Pre-Depends for things that they absolutely must have
> > to support the packaging system.
>
> According to this, "essential packages are the ones without which
> the packaging system breaks".
That's how it should be, yes.
However, we have several different classes here.
First, there's stuff that, if it breaks, makes impossible to use the
packaging system to repair it. Let's call that essential-for-dpkg.
Second, there's stuff that's needed for basic operations of the packaging
system, but if it breeaks, it can still be repaired using the packaging
system. Let's call that essential-for-normal-installation.
And third, there's stuff that just happens to be in packages also
containing some of the other stuff above, or even only support stuff for
such stuff. Essential-by-infection.
Now, we obviously must have pre-depends for the first case. It is much
less critical for the second case, but one could argue that it would still
be useful to prevent the install tools breaking - even if they are then
repairable.
I'd say it's not needed for the third case.
> Since Ian Jackson is the creator of dpkg, THIS is the reason I thought
> this had been *already* discussed. So I was *not* filing bug reports
> before discussion.
Well, let's just say it's possible to interpret the situation both ways,
and let's then go on to clarifying what we actually want.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: