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

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



On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > 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?

What I want is for this bash bug never to occur again. Nor anything like it.

The reason the bash bug occured is becuase neither Torsten nor I realised
that having essential packages work even unconfigured or after errors was
necessary. We didn't realise this because it's not documented anywhere, and
it's not a particularly obvious thing to have happen.

I've already gone over this. It's all in the bug logs.

> 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.

No, they're treated much more like pre-dependencies, actually: like
pre-dependencies there's no particular guarantee that they'll be
configured when you need them. Like pre-dependencies they're already
there when you start unpacking them.
 
> 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.)

And make dpkg's ordering rules more strict, for no good reason.

I've gone over this, too.

Sheesh.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
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: pgptDVjLy85U2.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: