Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
[following up my own post to cover some points I missed]
Chris Waters <email@example.com> writes:
> Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
Another good reason is that it would make it *very* much easier to do
things like setting up alternatives for /bin/sh. It would make the
system simpler, easier to maintain, more robust, and more flexible.
The downside is, of course, that dpkg isn't very good at ordering
things, but again, that's a flaw in dpkg, and I think we'd be better
off trying to address that, not just for essential packages, but for
the benefit of the whole system.
And if we can't maintain and improve dpkg, then we're already dead and
we just haven't noticed yet, because the corpse is still twitching.
Changing policy won't fix that! :-)
Chris Waters email@example.com | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or firstname.lastname@example.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.