Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 06:00:32AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > Wichert, Chris, did this or my previous mail answer your objections,
> > or...?
> You yourself admitted that this is more of an explanatory thing than
> actual policy (after all, the bug in bash is a bug with or without
> this addition). Therefore, I would like to counterpropose that this
> new paragraph (or something like it) be added to the packaging manual,
> rather than to policy.
FWIW, I was wondering the same thing, somewhat. As it stands, the
packaging-manual says:
====================
4.2.8. `Essential'
------------------
This is a boolean field which may occur only in the control file of a
binary package (or in the `Packages' file) or in a per-package fields
paragraph of a main source control data file.
If set to `yes' then `dpkg' and `dselect' will refuse to remove the
package (though it can be upgraded and/or replaced). The other
possible value is `no', which is the same as not having the field at
all.
====================
...which seems to be merely describing what dpkg does.
Policy currently says:
====================
2.3.7. Essential packages
-------------------------
Some packages are tagged `essential'. (They have `Essential: yes' in
their package control record.) This flag is used for packages that are
_essential_ for a system.
Since these packages can not easily be removed (you'll have to specify
an extra _force option_ to `dpkg') this flag must only be used where
absolutely necessary. A shared library package must not be tagged
_essential_--the dependencies will prevent its premature removal, and
we need to be able to remove it when it has been superseded.
You must not tag any packages `essential' before this has been
discussed on the `debian-devel' mailing and a consensus about doing
that has been reached.
====================
The second paragraph seems to be explaining the indirect consequences of
using the flag, which seems to be about the same as what we're doing here.
FWIW, the -fPIC stuff seems to be a similar case too.
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
Reply to: