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

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

Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

> +            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.

I'm a little bit afraid that this opens the door to endless debates
about what the "core functionality" of a package is.  For example, I
would have considered the "core functionality" of the bash package to
be providing /bin/bash, but someone was trying to claim that it is
providing /bin/sh.

IOW, I think this is maybe still too ambiguous.  OTOH, I won't object
if everyone else likes it.  :-)

Chris Waters   xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
      or    xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr     | this .signature file.

Reply to: