Re: essential vs. required vs. base
Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:
> Justin Pryzby <justinpryzby@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
>
>> I'm including the context diff between essential packages and required
>> ones. Since essential implies required, why isn't there simply another
>> priority class, instead of a separate "Essential" field??
>
[...]
> mawk isn't essential because awk has alternatives and mawk is just the
> default choice. Someone may want to install gawk and remove mawk, which
> should continue to work. sysv-rc and initscripts similarly, as I recall,
> have possible alternatives or at least might.
You don't need an init system in a chroot,
> dselect probably shouldn't be required any more.
>
> debconf implements a protocol, and another implementation of the same
> protocol should be allowed. cdebconf is in progress, in fact.
and you also don't need debconf in a chroot (unless you install a
package that uses it, of course).
> That leaves the following as the only differences that I don't know the
> story behind off-hand:
>
>> +gcc-4.0-base
>> +lsb-base
>> +makedev
>> +passwd
>> +procps
The last three aren't needed in a chroot (although I usually add users
in static chroots, and thus want passwd).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: