Re: Packages file [WAS: Splitting Packages]
> > I don't see any problem to tag a package with "Priority: Essential"
> > instead tag it with a separate line "Essential: Yes"! Policy can be
> > followed in both way.
> Assuming that essential packages are always packages with the priority
> required, you are right ;) In practice, that's the case, in theory that's
> nowhere stated within policy.
Essential Packages don't need (should not have) a priority, since they
follow the essential tag and never the priority. So it's the same as if
the essential tag is priority = essential.
What would you do with an essential package with priority optional? Does
his mean such a package could be optionally installed but only removed
> But since priority and essential is something different in concept I would
> rather stick to the existing solution. Let alone the fact that the
> "Essential:" tag applies to only 24 Packages at the moment, so removing
> that tag wouldn't result in much gain besides confusion for the user.
Why are all packages decided by the priority except the essential? Why
introduce another concept if the current would suffice? Why not remove a
concept which is fully supported by a more generalized concept?
Author of "Debian partial mirror synch script"
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org