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

Re: Priority dependence

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:08:32 +0200
Michael Banck <mbanck@debian.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:14:57PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 11:04:10 -0700
> > Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Maybe we should consider changing the default prio for all
> > > > library packages to optional or lower, except for specific
> > > > cases (e.g. libc) where the lib itself can actually be
> > > > considered part of the core system.
> > > 
> > > I would make a stronger argument than that: how much do we care
> > > about any priorities other than important, standard, and
> > > everything else? 
> > 
> > It is very worthwhile having a clear division between Required and
> > Important. A typical bootstrap should include Required but there is
> > no need for any of the important packages 
> If you want to have it minimal, install just the essential packages I
> think was Russ' point.  And/or possibly change/adjust essential so
> that it matches what you say is required above.

No, Essential has a different purpose (I've been picked up on this
issue before) - we need to be clear about Essential vs required.
Priority: required doesn't affect how other packages list their
own dependencies, Essential does.

Having said that, it is entirely possible to ignore Essential -
Emdebian has been doing that since before Lenny without any problems.
[0] It is even possible to ignore both Essential and Priority:
required, if you are sufficiently careful, because this brings
important benefits like being able to omit perl with just a suitably
modified busybox package and a narrow package set.

Essential doesn't matter when the user has no supported interface to
apt - as with many embedded uses of Debian.

[0] http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianPolicy


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgp1oLgjCf1jn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: