Making "may not be removed" and "needed
* Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> [110404 19:22]:
> If login worked consistently in the face of the configured shell going
> missing (automatically falling back to /bin/sh for root), then I think it
> would be worthwhile to do the work necessary to remove bash from the
> essential set. But until then, the primary purpose of Essential, to me, is
> the "minimal set guaranteed to be usable" aspect, not the "you don't have to
> depend on it" aspect.
I think it might be nice if those two aspects could be isolated somehow.
This could also reduce the size of some build chroots and the set of packages
any boot-strap code has to handle specially. With all the essential
stuff only needed for a full system to boot, those are larger than they
needed to be.
and their dependencies (passwd, initscripts, the whole pam stack)
are mostly not needed in that set.
(Util-linux might have one or two programs one might want to move
to another package then, and something for update-rc.d needs to be
How about giving the old meaning of Essential to packages being
Essential: yes and Priority: required and allowing a new state
Essential: yes and Priority: important that means a package manager
has to make sure its functionality is kept but everything not
having a Dependency is still supposed to work (do build chroots,
embedded stuff or other things can do without them).
Bernhard R. Link
 bootstrap code essentiall needs to unpack those and all their
dependencies manually and then call dpkg to do that again...
 At least I often build some of my packages in chroots not having
any of those.
 Though in my eyes "not removed" might suffice. Being able to login
always but having no guarantee a sshd is still running and working or
that it is still bootable gives not much in my eyes.