[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:

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

No good reason?  How about the very good reason that these packages
are essential, and if they aren't handled strictly and carefully, we
have problems.  As we've just seen.

But ok, if you don't like that, then I'll go back to what I said the
first time this came up: this belongs in the packaging manual, not

It's either a bug in dpkg, or a wishlist bug for the packaging
manual.  I don't see anything policy-related at all about the whole
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: