Re: RFC: No new Essential packages?
On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 01:59:30PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> 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 ?
Honestly? No. It's been long enough that I hadn't even heard of Debian
when it happened, let along that I would be involved (and I have been
involved in Debian since 2001).
I don't believe this is a coincidence; our processes to do such
transitions have improved vastly since those days, and I do not think
that we will have another transition as involved as the libc one.
--
To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy
-- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
Reply to: