Re: non maintainer upload of dpkg-scriptlibs (dpkg-perl & dpkg-python)

[James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk>]

Enrique Zanardi <ezanardi@ull.es> writes:

> > Is it ok, if I change this to Essential: Yes and Priority: Required?
> > for the dpkg-perl package?
> 
> The following is from the debian-devel thread:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 1997, Christian Schwarz <schwarz@monet.m.isar.de> wrote:
> > Subject: Re: need approval: how to use dpkg-perl in preinst scripts
> [...]
> > But seriously: does everyone here agree that
> > 
> >    a) tetex-* will get `Pre-Depends: dpkg-perl'
> > 
> >  _and_
> > 
> >    b) dpkg-perl is tagged `Essential: yes'
> >  ?
> > 
> > If not, please speak up now (or be quiet forever :-)
> 
> As I haven't seen any objections, I guess that means you can make
> the changes.

Uh, yes, well, I object.  dpkg-perl is not part of the base system,
Essential: yes on something not part of the base-system is a
non-sequitur[1].  Can this not wait till after hamm, please? (The
essential-ity discussion, that is) I had my doubts then, and I have
them even stronger now, since my prediction that very few, if any,
packages other than tetex-* would use dpkg-perl seems to have been
bourne out.

[1] except in obscure (and dubious) cases where you deliberately want
    to replace an Essential package, e.g. the old e2fsprogs e2compr
    situation.

-- 
James
~Yawn And Walk North~


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org