Bug#452393: [PROPOSAL] clarify overstep between "required" and "important" priorities
Jonathan Nieder <email@example.com> writes:
> It still sounds like work, so let's abandon that part of the proposal.
> Maybe we can prepare for it with the following, though?
> @@ -757,16 +757,11 @@
> - Packages which are necessary for the proper
> - functioning of the system (usually, this means that
> - dpkg functionality depends on these packages).
> - Removing a <tt>required</tt> package may cause your
> - system to become totally broken and you may not even
> - be able to use <prgn>dpkg</prgn> to put things back,
> - so only do so if you know what you are doing. Systems
> - with only the <tt>required</tt> packages are probably
> - unusable, but they do have enough functionality to
> - allow the sysadmin to boot and install more software.
> + Packages tagged <tt>Essential: yes</tt> and their
> + dependencies.
> + Systems with only the <tt>required</tt> packages are
> + probably unusable, but they do have enough functionality
> + to allow the sysadmin to boot and install more software.
Could someone who has the time to put together a script for this check to
see whether this is actually true? (Namely, that the only thing in
required are essential packages and their dependencies.)
Even if it's not, this may still be what we want to say, but if it's not
currently true, the list of packages that are currently required but not
part of the essential set should be illuminating. Either they will all be
packages that we want to downgrade, or this definition may not be correct.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>