Re: Bug in apt-get ? [replace essential package / Yes, do as I say]
In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.1030429105632.14980Afirstname.lastname@example.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> I'd say in this case apt is going slightly overboard. It's against
>> current policy, and dpkg itself does get it right.
>It isn't against policy.
Policy says that that an essential package can be upgraded *or replaced*.
Currently, apt scares the users into not doing that.
This is a boolean field which may occur only in the control file of
a binary package (or in the Packages file) or in a per-package fields
paragraph of a main source control data file.
If set to yes then dpkg and dselect will refuse to remove the package
(though it can be upgraded and/or replaced). The other possible value
is no, which is the same as not having the field at all.
Besides, the packages we're talking about are not even essential!
>So this check is here to stay.
>You have to find another way to do what you want that isn't so risky.
Is that the official stance of the apt team?
>I seriously recommend against using virtual packages, or |'s with packages
>that are marked essential. There is alot of very poor behavior you will
If that is true, shouldn't that be *fixed* instead of going "don't
do that, then" ?