[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: POSIX shell; bash ash pdksh & /bin/sh

	I stnad corrected, then. If mawk/awk was not the package from
 whome the essential flag was removed, which was it then?


>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

 Santiago> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 Santiago> On 3 Aug 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

 Santiago> I don't buy the idea of an "implied promise". Other
 Santiago> essential packages have been downgraded to required, and
 Santiago> nobody *ever* talked about "implied promises". Yes, bash is
 Santiago> *currently* more important than those packages, but the
 Santiago> difference here is only cuantitative, not qualitative.
 >> Please refresh my memory. The only package so downgreaded, in
 >> case you have forgotten, was made into a virtual package that also
 >> was a dependency of an essential package; and the reasons for doing
 >> so were that other packages could provide it.
 >> Does not look like no one raised a fuss. To all intents and
 >> practices, an awk package is essential.

 Santiago> No awk package was ever essential, at least not in Debian 1.3.1.
 Santiago> No awk package was *downgraded* from essential to non-essential.

 Santiago> However, I have not heard any horror stories about a
 Santiago> package to break because of awk not being in the
 Santiago> system. Why not? Because mawk was "Priority: required".

	No, because base-files, an essential package, depends on
 awk. Dependencies of essential packages are paid a great deal
 of attention to.

 Four principal things increase in the man who is respectful and
 always honours his elders - length of life, good looks, happiness and
 health. 109
Manoj Srivastava  <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: