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 ].
As someone who almost forced deletion and then had second thoughts, I have
to say that it is a ridiculous concept to have a package that cannot be
removed because it is essential, but is at the same time obsolete.
Obsolete implies that it has been replaced by something new (and hopefully
improved :-) which it has, but it also implies that since the package
has been replaced, the old package (no matter how essential) is no longer
required (which is also true). By implication, to anyone who doesn't
understand the danger, forcing removal would be a reasonable option. I
understand the danger in theory, but I have had problems with the way some
other packages were created in the past, so forcing removal does not seem
all that unreasonable. Were it not for the fact that I didn't have four
hour to spare to put the system back together if I hosed it, I might have gone
ahead and forced it.
I think it is a very bad idea in general to leave any unnecessary
files/data on a system after an upgrade, since over time these tend to
accumulate and can cause maintenance headaches in the future for anyone
trying to sort out what is part of the current system, and what is
residual junk. One of the primary reasons I switched to debian from
slackware several years ago was that upgrading a slackware system often
resulted in a large number of unnecessary files hanging around the system
that could not easily be distinguished from the required files. This is a
particular problem if a configuration file is moved or renamed, since it
is really easy to modify the old configuration file and then spend hours
cursing before you realize that the old file is no longer being used.
While the configuration file issue doesn't apply here, I think the
principle remains the same, "junk" files/data should always be removed,
and in this case there is at the very least, the junk which indicates that
the old "base" is still installed that should be removed.
Shannon C. Dealy
dealy@deatech.com
Reply to: