Re: RFC: No new Essential packages?
On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 08:08:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 01:31:14AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 11:59:34AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I've never liked the rule that you don't have to declare dependencies on
> > > essential packages and would love to phase it out as much as possible (I
> > > think even intermediate movement in that direction would be useful), but
> > > I'd like Guillem to weigh in from a dpkg perspective to indicate whether
> > > this makes sense to him and whether I'm missing something.
> >
> > This rule is vital to allow for smooth transition when essential
> > programs are moved from one package to another.
>
> It's not? We have programs moving from one package to another all the
> time outside the set of Essential packages, and the sky isn't falling.
Remember the libc5 to libc6 transition ?
Imagine the number of packages that would depends on bash.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: