Bug#645451: apt should have priority required, like all other essential packages
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion. Though I'll still stand by the request in the
> original report, and add to that the suggestion apt should probably
> become essential, rather than just the internal concept of "Important",
> to make that concept more visible.
Presumably the idea of Important is that libapt users are relying on
apt. APT has a sort of instinct (ok, heuristic) for self-preservation,
which makes sure that after an interrupted upgrade the user will still
be able to recover using familiar apt-based tools.
That does not make APT essential in the Policy sense. I personally do
not use apt much, and I am happy to have that option (for several
reasons, including that it results in dpkg's interfaces being better
specified and that we can experiment a little with the design of
higher-level package management tools).