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

Re: Bug #32888: The old `base' package.

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:

> > > 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".

I was referring always to Essential: yes.

> Yes, the essential package base should be Essential;

I think we all agree on this.

> 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 has been replaced by base-files, base-passwd and 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.

By "<no package>" I think you mean that devices do not belong to any
package (is this what you mean?).

Yes, I agree, a new slink system installed from scratch does not need
the old "base" package, for this reason "base" is no longer part of the

However, on systems which were Debian 1.2 or earlier, and were upgraded to
1.3 or higher, not *all* the functionality of base has been replaced by
base-files, base-passwd and <no package>. base does still contain the
device files, and as such it is still a required package and has the
"Essential: yes" flag.

I'm trying to understand what kind of harm does the existence of the base
package which has to be considered as a "bug".

Is there a technical reason why we should make "base" to disappear
from old systems?

Is there any reason to make "base" to disappear other than aesthetical?

I agree, if we had to make "base" to disappear, we could do it by using
base-files.postinst, but first I have to understand why do we *have* to
make "base" to disappear.


 "85cc034f170cb99a5a8dfce93e982f1e" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: