Re: Wheezy release: CDs are not big enough any more...
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 12:47:01 +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Guillem Jover dixit:
> > the archive override. And if we have to keep changing the packages
> > anyway to make sure they match changing priorities, we might as well
> > just set the compressor (to gzip) explicitly for base packages.
>
> Pseudo-essential packages are going to be a problem though.
> What if a (hypothetical, of course!) package maintainer of
> an essential package suddenly decides they need to depend
> on, oh I know, say, ucf? Of course, this situation is purely
> hypothetical, and ucf would never suddenly become pseudo-
> essential.
It's not just pseudo-essential, anything pulled into the base set
would be affected. In any case that was where my comment was coming
from (probably not clearly enough though). Whenever something gets
pulled into the base set by something else (another package, an update
to the archive override, etc), then there's going to be a time window
where the priority in the .deb and the archive override will not match,
and the package will need to be modified to accommodate that change.
So such possible conditional handling in dpkg-deb (with which I'm not
comfortable with, because it's encoding non-generic policy into the
tool) would not help anyway, at which point I'd say it makes more
sense to just explicitly call dpkg-deb with -Zgzip for base packages.
> (Who *is* the authority telling people off for making other
> packages pseudo-essential, anyway? I’ve seen it thrice at
> least already; luckily it was reverted for the instance when
> someone pulled in the (full) perl package.)
I'd say debian-devel, either because most of the time this implies a
Pre-Depends anyway, or because it's just promoting something into the
Essential set.
thanks,
guillem
Reply to: