Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.
> > It is only essential now because removing it would hose the system.
> > It is othrewise unimportant; base-files and base-password provide
> > the exact same functionality.
> >
> > IMHO, it is not essential.
>
> This is contradictory. If removing it would hose the system, then it has a
> good reason to be essential.
>
> The fact that new systems do not have a package named "base" does not mean
> this package is not essential for systems having it installed.
> [ Proof: Remove it and see what happens ].
You are confusing either essential (ie impoprtant) with Essential (ie
Essential: yes) or "is" with "should be". Yes, the essential package
base should be Essential; however, on systems where the functionality
has been replaced by base-files, base-passwd and <no package>, package
base *should not be* essential or Essential. This can be done by making
the post-inst of either base-files or base-passwd, or something on which
they both depend (but the old base did not), hack dpkg's database to
remove /dev/* or whatever from base's file list (without actually removing
the files, of course... that's what we're trying to prevent), so that base
could safely be removed. in order to be sure this happens -before- base
is removed (though dselect and apt will use the right order normally it
could be done differently, and this is bad) we could make a new package
base that pre-depends: base-file-list-hack, which would make a safely
removable empty package that could be obsoleted in the next release (safe
unless someone upgrades two releases at once, skipping potato).
i know it's not an -elegant- solution, but it is imho better than having
a useless (yes, it -is- useless for releases that don't have it in their
archives) package around. but then again, i thought the same thing about
the great x reorganization (though the reason the font packages weren't
subjected to this solution was iirc because they -didn't- hose a system)
so maybe the response to this is predictable :)
comments appreciated; flames cheerfully ignored so go ahead but in
private mail please.
--p.
The reader this signature encounters not failing to understand is cursed.
Reply to: