Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 02:54:56PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> But: I just realised.  For bash (or whatever essential packages
> provide /bin/sh and /bin/perl), the situation is far worse: what
> happens if a package is *removed* when the symlink is not in place
> (because the package is not properly configured)?  Then if the
> {pre,post}rm use /bin/sh or /bin/perl, that will also fail.  And I do
> not believe that dpkg pays any attention to dependencies for removing
> packages, so the solution proposed above technically fails for /bin/sh
> and /bin/perl.

If apt removes an essential package without an unpacked replacement
that's an apt bug.

-- 
Raul