On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 11:32:19AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote: > what is the reason why in the following sentence in Policy: > > ,---- > | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or postrm > | scripts require the package to be present in order to run. > `---- > > the word "should" is used, not "must"? I'm asking here (not on -policy) > because I assume there must be a technical reason for it, but I really > can't think of any. > > If a package is missing a Depends, and therefore will routinely fail in > prerm or postrm --remove, isn't that a release-critical bug? Failing to remove is a grave bug anyway. Policy doesn't really matter. Not every possible bug is written into policy. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature