Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends
Christian Schwarz writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > Recall, that there was a discussion on this topic between Feb 9 and Feb
> > > 18, with subject line "awk: essential virtual package?"
> > >
> > > We discussed the suggestion that all essential packages have to use
> > > Pre-Depends instead of Depends.
> >
> > I have effectively implemented this in Deity's ordering routine. It
> > automatically considers all dependants of essential packages as
> > pre-depends and immediate configure.
> >
> > There is a downside, to satisfy a pre-depends requires that you be able to
> > immediately configure the target package, which means all of it's
> > dependancies must be installed as well, and so on. This increases the
> > chance of a critical loop forming and the package being non-trivial to
> > install.
> >
> > We are already starting to get more of these loops as people try to make
> > their pacakges safer, just yesterday a new kbd was uploaded that loops
> > with sysvinit.
> >
> > Therefore, if we are going to make this policy we are going to need better
> > policy on loop handling and possibly upgrades to dpkg.
> [snip]
>
> Ian, could you please comment on this issue?
>
> I haven't received any objections yet, so I'm planning such a check for
> lintian and will prepare a proposal for a policy change. However, it would
> be good to hear the opinion of the dpkg maintainer first :)
I'm sorry, what precise policy change is being proposed ?
It is currently policy that Essential packages have to use Pre-Depends
for things which they need to support the packaging system. They
should use Depends, otherwise, just like any other package.
Or am I mistaken ?
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: