On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 12:23:12PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> But I digress. We seem to have either a choice of making it manadatory
> that if a package uses debconf, it must depend on it. This may be more
> palatable than it was to early adopters like netbase last year; I
> dunno. However, this would require that debconf be section base, as eg,
> netbase is in base.
I've been meaning to just make netbase & friends depend on debconf since
it went into policy. As the Paul S will attest, I haven't gotten around
to it yet.
> Or I can add a pre-dependancy on perl. Or debconf could be declared
> essential, but that seems like a mighty big sledgehammer for this fly.
The problem with making it essential is that it currently depends on
apt, which really shouldn't need to be required or essentially (as cool
as it is). But with as much depending on it now as there is, IMO, it's
probably appropriate to consider it required on today's Debian systems.
Also, essential packages have to use pre-depends anyway (since they have
to be fully functional even unconfigured), so I guess more or less whatever
you do, you need the pre-depends?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpFjx0qJ2_O6.pgp
Description: PGP signature