Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:40:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> +
> + <p>
> + Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages
> + while an <tt>essential</tt> package is in an unconfigured
> + state, all <tt>essential</tt> must supply all their core
> + functionality even when unconfigured. If the package cannot
> + satisfy this requirement it should not be tagged as essential,
> + and any packages depending on this package should instead
> + have explicit dependency fields as appropriate.
Sorry that I missed most of this, but...
I think this will make the dependency chain even more complex. I agree
with the idea that essential packages should be functional even without
being configured, but then you will need to make all essential packages
static binaries to satisfy this. Remember that dpkg allows them to be
unpacked even when pre-deps aren't satisfied, just not configured. So if a
library dependency isn't met, and it is unpacked, then there is no way to
have it be functional.
Maybe dpkg _should_ be changed to check the status of essential packages
before installing things. It seems like that is the core problem and is
much easier to solve. Plus it makes sense, since essential packages are
supposedly required for a minimaly functional system (a lot of which dpkg
depends on anyway).
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org - collinbm@djj.state.va.us - bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: