Re: awk: essential virtual package?
On 16 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> In conclusion, I think we do need awk to be an essential
> package, and failing a mechanism to mark a virtual package essential,
> I think base-files should again depend on awk.
I fully agree. Unless there are any objections: Santiago, please add the
dependency (or pre-dependency, see below) again.
I'll add a note to the policy manual that in some cases, we have `virtual
essential packages' and we implement these by having the base-files
package depend on them. (I don't think we should allow any essential
package to declare such VEP's. It's easier to keep track of them by
having them all in one place.)
> Combined with the other proposal, that all essential package
> exclusively use pre-depends rahter than pure depends, this would mean
> that base-files should pre-depend on swk.
^^^ awk
I must admit I didn't notice this discussion until I saw the discussion
about the bug reports on this topic. Could someone please explain in a few
sentences the technical reasons behind this?
If this turns out to be true in general (that essential packages should
only specify pre-depends, no depends) then this should definitely be
documented somewhere in the manuals.
Thanks,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian GNU/Linux? schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
Reply to: