[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:

> [1  <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 02:06:47AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Furthermore, it occurs to me that the problem isn't just essential
> > packages.  If libc6 fails to work during an upgrade, we're equally bad
> > off, but libc6 isn't essential.  So, the proposal is not only
> > ambiguous and redundant, but misdirected as well.  Only the fact that
> > it's harmless (because it's redundant) keeps me from formally
> > objecting.  :-)

> *sigh*

> How about coming up with something better then?

Better how?  The situation with bash is already a bug, so we don't
need to change policy to deal with that.  So what is it you're trying
to accomplish?  What is it you really want?

Here's a thought: the system should actually *pre*-depend on packages
that are required by the packaging system itself.  But essential
packages are treated (at least by dpkg) as universal dependencies, not
universal pre-dependencies.

If we fix *that* one, then the bug in bash magically becomes
not-a-bug, and the whole need for this proposal disappears, just like
that.  (AFAICT.)

Better to fix our internal bugs than to enshrine them forever in
policy.  Essential packages *should* be able to use the alternatives
system without exploding.

So, maybe better would be to file a bug against dpkg, not policy.
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: