Re: Bug#50832: PROPOSED] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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.
I agree, essential packages by definition cannot stop working or the whole
system has the potential to fail. It is just not acceptable for an
essential package to ever have a state where it can not provide its
essential functions.
That means bash must always have working sh, perl must always have a
working perl, etc.
This doesn't seem to be a problem except that people seem to want to
create complex packaging without any regard to how critical the program
is!
Jason
Reply to: