Bug#872587: Document the Protected field
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:27:09 -0700 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: retitle -1 Document the Protected field
>
> Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> writes:
> > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>
> >> Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports
> >> the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined
> >> behaviour for the field, as it will make documenting it much easier.
> >> It will also allow us to be more confident that there is no serious
> >> disagreement about the purpose of the field.
>
> > Right, let's have dpkg maintainers tell us what they think.
>
> >> I couldn't find a bug against dpkg, but if there is one, it should
> >> probably be set to block this bug.
>
> > 872587 < 872589, I filed the Policy one first. Block added.
>
> Per the resolution of #872589, this was implemented as the Protected field
> instead. Retitling the bug accordingly.
>
> The documentation from deb-control(5) is:
>
> Protected: yes|no
> This field is usually only needed when the answer is yes. It denotes
> a package that is required mostly for proper booting of the system or
> used for custom system-local meta-packages. dpkg(1) or any other
> installation tool will not allow a Protected package to be removed (at
> least not without using one of the force options).
>
> It's probably also worth noting the parenthetical comment in the
> documentation of Essential:
>
> Essential: yes|no
> This field is usually only needed when the answer is yes. It denotes
> a package that is required for the packaging system, for proper
> operation of the system in general or during boot (although the latter
> should be converted to Protected field instead). dpkg(1) or any other
> installation tool will not allow an Essential package to be removed
> (at least not without using one of the force options).
I'm still not sure that I inderstand the difference between those two.
They seem to accomplish the same thing. Did I miss something?
It should also be noted that, as of version 2.117.0, Lintian still
gives a warning whenever a binary target has the Protected field set.
Martin-Éric
Reply to: