On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 11:19 +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[🔎] 20050510072206.GJ3763@asterix.konqueror.de> you wrote:
> > libc6 is not and may not be marked Essential, as the NM process taught me.
> > So its a bad example.
>
> Even if it is marked as essential, you have a versioned dependency, anyway.
But the point is, you cannot mark it essential; doing so is a severity
serious bug. From the Policy, section 3.8:
Since these packages cannot be easily removed (one has to specify an
extra _force option_ to `dpkg' to do so), this flag must not be used
unless absolutely necessary. A shared library package must not be
tagged `essential'; dependencies will prevent its premature removal,
and we need to be able to remove it when it has been superseded.
Notice the the use of "must not"; that makes it severity serious. Even
if there is no plan to change the name on GNU/Linux, that does not mean
that is the case on GNU/KFreeBSD, GNU/KNetBSD, or GNU/Hurd; that is why
glibc is not granted an exception.
--
($_,$a)=split/\t/,join'',map{unpack'u',$_}<DATA>;eval$a;print;__DATA__
M961H<F$@8FAM;"!U<F%O<G-U(#QU<F%O<G-U0&=D:75M<&UC8VUL=G)U;6LN
M<FUL+F=Y/@H)>2QA8F-D969G:&EJ:VQM;F]P<7)S='5V=WAY>BQN=V]R8FMC
5:75Q96AT9V1Y>F%L=G-P;6IX9BP)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part