RFC: No new Essential packages?
The concept of an "Essential" package seems to exist for something so
common that no package should have to declare a dependency on it.
However, over the years, "Essential" has made it difficult to reduce
installation size, to reduce chroot/container size, or to coordinate
various transitions. Removing something from the Essential set requires
tracking down every package using it to add a dependency, carefully
managing a transition across Debian releases, and risking third-party
breakage.
Leaving aside the *existing* Essential packages, or any packages they
might transition into, is there a good rationale to allow *new*
Essential packages? Would it be reasonable for Policy to have guidance
suggesting that we should not introduce new Essential packages, and that
packages should use Depends or Pre-Depends as appropriate instead?
Any such guidance could make an exception for all existing Essential
packages, as well as for new packages introduced to transition from
existing Essential packages. (This policy shouldn't, for instance,
prevent Essential packages from splitting or combining.)
Does this seem reasonable?
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: