Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 12:19:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:00:09AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:40:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > + 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
>
> It doesn't actually do anything, it just documents existing caveats.
Actually it enforces existing caveats. It just seems to be side stepping the
real problem to me. Changing all the dependencies (removing essential status
to force other packages to dep on it) just seems like policy juggling, and
the actual problem is really more technical related.
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org - collinbm@djj.state.va.us - bmc@visi.net '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: