On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 09:02:53PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 12:39:20PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Regardless, I don't think this bug is sufficient to claim that sendmail
> > *must* continue to depend on rmail for sarge in order to support partial
> > upgrades. AFAIK, the only package in the archive which depends on
> > rmail's functionality is uucp, and it had an incorrect dependency in
> > woody anyway, because Depends: m-t-a did not guarantee the presence of
> > rmail then, either.
>
> I would submit that users can rely on functionalities available in a
> package without an explicit package dependency.
>
> So if sendmail provided a rmail executable, upgrading to sarge should
> not removing it silently.
I would second that, on the basis that there is precedence in a fairly
high number of other cases, so high a number in fact that it would be
fair to call this "established practice". Try "apt-cache search
transition remove" once.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature