On Sun, Nov 21, 1999 at 02:09:23PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > + Further, since these packages may be implicitly required by any
> > + number of other packages, including dpkg itself, they must function
> > + correctly even while unconfigured.
> You can't enforce this. At the very least there be an `as far as
> posisble' statement.
You can kind-of enforce it. ``Hey, this package does stuff in its postinst,
get rid of the Essential tag, now.'' This is enforcable since it's already
the case, and what we've got so far works.
And `as far as possible' isn't any good, since that still leaves plenty
of room for critical breakage (ie, breaking other packages through no
fault of their own).
Perhaps, though, it should be limited to `core functionality' or similar?
(The reason I'd like this in policy is that when I was suggesting fixes for
this, I didn't think this would be a problem --- it worked when I tested it,
and it seemed perfectly reasonable. Thus, documenting something mildly
unobvious that causes major breakage seems a good thing for policy to do)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpFb0iHtoDws.pgp
Description: PGP signature