On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 12:37:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 10:24:37AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Personally I would increase the strength of the wording to be more like:
> > An essential package is one that can never stop working. This means any
> > dpkg abort must leave the package properly functional.
> > IMHO just being able to live in the unpacked state is not good enough.
> This is more what I was looking for. Making it more important that the
> real issue be met without giving some weak fallback (removing the
> essential status if it fails the real meaning of the clause). This should
> be a criteria for essential packages, not just new ones, but also make sure
> that changes in current ones do not conflict with this.
That makes sense.
Finishing unpacking isn't exactly a dpkg abort, though. Maybe `This means
the package must be functional even before it has been configured when
upgrading and after any dpkg abort.' ?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgpIQ7pdYPVF0.pgp
Description: PGP signature