[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Should ucf be of priority required?

On Sat, Dec 05, 2009 at 06:17:20PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> > ucf being priority required is not sufficient.  It is still possible to
> > remove such a package (mawk is a good example) and therefore you would
> > still need to execute ucf conditionally.

> You are right. My bad.

> >  The only way around that is to make ucf essential,
> > and I don't think that's a good idea.

> What speaks against it? Its basically a mini tool (Installed-Size: 260)
> and not making it essential leads to the mentioned situations.

> The only bad thing is, that it depends on a tool which is not essential
> (debconf) and seems not to be able to render questions without debconf.

> Or should we simply not care about packages modifying files (via
> external tools) and not reverting those changes when beeing removed?

Aside from the misunderstanding about how ucf works in practice, this
doesn't belong as Essential because Essential exists for two reasons:

 - to resolve dependency loops in the core system that otherwise could not
   be solved
 - to declare the minimal set of functionality that must be available and
   usable on the system at all times, even when not configured

There's no reason that ucf *should* fall under either of these rules; so
even if ucf /didn't/ work the way it does, the right solution here would be
to fix it so that it did, not to add it to Essential.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: