[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#645451: marked as done (apt should have priority required, like all other essential packages)

Your message dated Sun, 16 Oct 2011 16:06:44 +0200
with message-id <20111016155838.GA21921@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#645451: apt should have priority required, like all other essential packages
has caused the Debian Bug report #645451,
regarding apt should have priority required, like all other essential packages
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
645451: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645451
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.8.15.9
Severity: minor

All packages with "Essential: yes" have "Priority: required", except for
apt.  Seems like apt should have "Priority: required" as well.

(I'd guess that this particular priority dates back to when Debian
systems could use dpkg and optionally dselect to manage packages,
without apt.)

- Josh Triplett

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 07:14:56PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 08:56:37PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > All packages with "Essential: yes" have "Priority: required", except for
> > > apt.  Seems like apt should have "Priority: required" as well.
> > 
> > apt is not essential.
> > 
> > 	$ cupt show apt | grep Essential
> > 	$
> 
> That's fascinating.  Aptitude's screen-oriented interface shows it as
> essential, and aptitude search '?essential' shows apt.  I got to this
> point through the following search:
> 
> ~$ aptitude search '?essential ?not(?priority(required))'
> i A apt                             - APT's commandline package manager
> 
> However, "aptitude show apt" does not show it as essential, whereas
> "aptitude show dpkg" does show that as essential.  "apt-cache show apt"
> and "apt-cache show dpkg" concur with the corresponding "aptitude show"
> commands.
> 
> So, something in aptitude seems to magically treat apt as essential.  A
> bug already exists on aptitude: http://bugs.debian.org/548505 .
> Apparently aptitude maps ?essential to apt's flags Essential and
> Important, and apt internally sets the Important flag for apt.  The
> Important flag appears nowhere else, and I haven't found any
> documentation about it other than the mentions in that bug and a few
> other bugs.
There probably was an "Important: yes" flag in Packages at the
time that code was written, probably serving the same purpose
as "Priority: important" does now.


> 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.
APT is correct at important. A Debian system does not require APT to
perform correctly, and should not do so.

aptitude should be changed to ignore the Important flag when searching
for essential packages.

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.

Attachment: pgppkzGCsMs3f.pgp
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: