Re: "Defaults for satisfying dependencies - ordering" gone?
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 10:25:15PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > That is, ae, which is required. In another place, Policy says:
> >
> > `required' packages are necessary for the proper functioning of
> > the system. You must not remove these packages or your system
> > may become totally broken and you may not even be able to use
> > `dpkg' to put things back.
>
> However, the policy also says:
>
> Every package must specify the dependency information about other
> packages that are required for the first to work correctly.
>
> Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on
> other packages which are marked `Essential' (see below), and should
> not do so unless they depend on a particular version of that package.
>
> I agree that in this particular case, the distinction is only of academic
> interest. Nevertheless, it may come back to bite us later should we wish
> to rely on the fact that only essential packages have implicit dependencies
> on them.
Yes, well, the problem with editors is that making any particular one
essential is likely to piss off people who want to remove that one and use
another one. A solution would be some sort of an essential virtual package
that editors would provide, but that's not viable, either. So we're stuck. :)
> Intuitively, non-essential required packages should only exist if they're
> depended on by essential ones. That's why I have a problem with ae being
> a non-essential required package when nothing essential depends on it.
Well, to configure various core things you need an editor, and it's not
unlikely that there are programs in essential packages that call editor...
I didn't check, though.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: