Bug#645451: apt should have priority required, like all other essential packages

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 09:29:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Why?
> 
> 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).

OK, I see your point.  In fairness, I don't actually care about the
contents of /usr/bin in the apt package, just libapt and
/usr/lib/apt/methods.  Those form part of the apt package too, though.

- Josh Triplett