[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

This proposal's discussion time is more or less over. Fortunately,
I think we've more or less reached consensus that it's a good thing.

Here's a hopefully final diff, that also corrects some weird markup
slightly earlier. It incorporates Julian Gibley's suggested wording

--- - Wed Dec  8 21:37:34 1999
+++ policy.sgml Wed Dec  8 21:37:32 1999
@@ -772,9 +772,18 @@
      absolutely necessary.
      A shared library package must not be tagged
-     <em>essential</em>--the dependencies will prevent its
+     <tt>essential</tt>--the dependencies will prevent its
      premature removal, and we need to be able to remove it
      when it has been superseded.</p>
+          <p>
+            Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages
+            while an <tt>essential</tt> package is in an unconfigured
+            state, all <tt>essential</tt> must supply all their core
+            functionality even when unconfigured. If the package cannot
+            satisfy this requirement it should not be tagged as essential,
+            and any packages depending on this package should instead
+            have explicit dependency fields as appropriate.
      You must not tag any packages <tt>essential</tt> before


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG 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: pgpKKlxMOgQrZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: