On 27/10/2013 18:54, David Kalnischkies wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Fabien Givors (Debian) > <f+debian@chezlefab.net> wrote: >> I'm rather against that. >> >> --force-all does't only force removal of essential packages, but also >> AFAIK installation from untrusted sources, etc. >> >> More generally, I think that options like "--force-all" shouls /never/ >> be recommanded as good practices. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) > > I agree, but I don't see how removing essentials could be interpreted as > "good practice" Well, replacing the (essential) init with a non-supported one looks to me like an operation that should be well supported by the package manager. The fact that everything may break after is not the responsibility on APT/DPKG anymore (and that's' to my understanding, the non-supported part.) Then using the "I'll do everything I can without checking anything" --force-yes option looks to me like "we don't support removing essential packages anymore". But that's where I may be wrong. Maybe we don't support the removal of essential packages. Or maybe the --force-yes option can't add more danger than the validation of the failsafe. I'm sure you have, as an apt dev, a better understanding than me of these problems so, now that I've reported my thoughts, I'll stop arguing and trust your decision :) Thank you for your work, Regards, -- captnfab
Attachment:
0x5E2B115E.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature