Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:58:38AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
>>>>> I think this will make the dependency chain even more complex. I agree
>>>> It doesn't actually do anything, it just documents existing caveats.
>>> Actually it enforces existing caveats. It just seems to be side stepping the
>>> real problem to me. Changing all the dependencies (removing essential status
>>> to force other packages to dep on it) just seems like policy juggling, and
>>> the actual problem is really more technical related.
>> Erm. But there *isn't* a problem.
> So the main issue is making people aware that essential packages need to
> be in a usable state even when not configured?
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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