Re: non maintainer upload of dpkg-scriptlibs (dpkg-perl & dpkg-python)
James Troup writes:
> Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es> writes:
>
> > > Is it ok, if I change this to Essential: Yes and Priority: Required?
> > > for the dpkg-perl package?
> >
> > The following is from the debian-devel thread:
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> wrote:
> > > Subject: Re: need approval: how to use dpkg-perl in preinst scripts
> > [...]
> > > But seriously: does everyone here agree that
> > >
> > > a) tetex-* will get `Pre-Depends: dpkg-perl'
> > >
> > > _and_
> > >
> > > b) dpkg-perl is tagged `Essential: yes'
> > > ?
> > >
> > > If not, please speak up now (or be quiet forever :-)
> >
> > As I haven't seen any objections, I guess that means you can make
> > the changes.
>
> Uh, yes, well, I object. dpkg-perl is not part of the base system,
> Essential: yes on something not part of the base-system is a
> non-sequitur[1]. Can this not wait till after hamm, please? (The
> essential-ity discussion, that is) I had my doubts then, and I have
> them even stronger now, since my prediction that very few, if any,
> packages other than tetex-* would use dpkg-perl seems to have been
> bourne out.
>
> [1] except in obscure (and dubious) cases where you deliberately want
> to replace an Essential package, e.g. the old e2fsprogs e2compr
> situation.
It can wait.
Enrique Zanardi writes:
> Remember to remove the dependency on perl. dpkg-perl works fine with
> perl-base, and perl-base is "essential". (grave bugs 21773 & 22526).
Anyway, is it ok and necessary to fix the wrong dependency for the
hamm release?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: