Re: dependency on base package adduser ?
Petter Reinholdtsen <email@example.com> writes:
> [Matthijs Mohlmann]
>> But i'm not really sure about it because adduser is a base package. And
>> i thought you don't have to depend on a base package.
> Where did you get that idea? Any references to documentation stating
> I suspect you confuse this with build-dependencies, where you can drop
> dependencies on build essesials. A package is supposed to have a
> complete and correct list of dependencies for its binary packages. Just
> look at how all binaries depend on libc. It is a base package, but
> still listed as a dependency.
I think he might be confused by the difference between essential, priority
required, and section base.
So far as I know, a base package (section base) has no particular special
meaning from a dependency perspective, although I believe that section may
be reserved for required packages (but am not sure).
The Policy statement is that one does not have to depend on *essential*
Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on
other packages which are marked Essential (see below), and should not
do so unless they depend on a particular version of that package.
Essential is a special flag that's separate from the priority. You still
have to depend on even Priority: required packages that you use if they're
Anyway, adduser is only Priority: important, which means that it's quite
possible for it to not be installed.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>