On 20 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:
> [ I have no idea if I can post to the still-too-damn-closed deity
> mailing list, but the Cc is there ]
The list has has always been publicly writeable. I'm also told it's now
publicly readable in digest form.
> [ Oh, and because of the closed nature, please Cc: any replies to me ]
Done.
> Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
> > I would say they are basically assuming that all packages marked
> > essenital will be working whenever their package is to be installed.
>
> " It is not necessary for other packages to declare any dependencies
> they have on other packages which are marked `Essential' (see
> below)."
> Debian Policy (Version 2.3.0.1) 2.3.4
>
> Yes, I am assuming that, because it says so in Policy.
> \begin{bitch}The deity team have read that document, right?\end{bitch}
<sigh> You didn't follow the thread leading up to this post. I was just
using it as a supporting example of this statement and a few other theorys
we are flogging around.
You will note that even though the policy manual says dependanices are not
needed it does -NOT- say they are implicitly present (the point of my
post). The subtle difference is that implicitly present depends will mean
essential packages will try to be configured first.
> > This means every pacakge implicity Pre-Depends on -ALL- esential
> > packages!
>
> No, because then you couldn't upgrade an essential package and a
> non-essential package at the same time; this is quite clearly not the
> case. We assume a Depend:s on them.
Perhaps, I'm not sure which would be best to use right now, remember Deity
has an ordering scheme so pre-depends doesn't have the same 'problems' as
in dpkg. Someone will have to take a carefull look at exactly where dpkg
calls the various inst scripts before answering that.
Jason