Bug#954794: New packages must not declare themselves Essential
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for
> >> helping people evaluate that first step.
> >
> > Here is a rough plan:
> >
> > 1. Policy: Packages should declare all their dependencies, even
> > essential ones.
>
> I agree: this is the right first step.
>
> More specifically, it's the right first three steps.
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#dependencies
> currently says
>
> 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.[4]
>
> [4] [...] If packages add unnecessary dependencies on packages
> in this set, the chances that there will be an unresolvable
> dependency loop caused by forcing these Essential packages to
> be configured first before they need to be is greatly
> increased.
>
> I'd propose that as a first step we change that to
>
> Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they
> have on other packages which are marked Essential (see below),
> but are permitted to do so even if they do not depend on a
> particular version of that package.[4]
This is very dangerous with respect to upgrade between stable releases.
The issue is at the time a package is made for a stable release, the
state of Debian and Essential: yes packages is not known. It is
unrealistic to expect Debian to plan so far in advance.
Requiring changes to Essential packages to take into account spurious
dependencies is too fragile.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: