Re: Essential pacakges
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> I have a problem, was just testing some code out and this interesting
> thing came up:
>
> Package: e2compr
> Version: 1.06-2
> Priority: extra
> Section: utils
> Essential: yes
> Maintainer: Tom Lees <tom@lpsg.demon.co.uk>
> Pre-Depends: libc5 (>= 5.4.0-0)
> Conflicts: e2fsprogs
> Provides: e2fsprogs
> Replaces: e2fsprogs
>
> Now, my understanding is that essential packages, by definition, must
> be installed for the system to function - This package claims to be
> essential but removes other essential packages! (thus an essential package
> does not have to be installed for the system to function)
>
> This is going to cause me grief, should this be allowed or is this package
> in serious viloation of policy?
No. When a package is essential and provides, replaces and conflicts with
an essential package, this is not a bug. This just means that one
essential package is meant to replace another (older) essential package
and provides all the functionality that was in the older package.
Remco
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@debian.org .
Reply to: