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. :-)
cheers
--
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: