On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 08:10:11PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > > Interesting timing. initscripts started depending on ucf just a few > > days ago, which makes ucf quasi-essential.
> Unless you are going to argue to add it to the essential set, I can't > see why that matters. It's still wrong to use non-essential packages > in postrm unconditionally. One could even argue that an essential > package should not use ucf unconditionally and have a sane fall back > when it's not available. Well, I would argue that packages in the essential set shouldn't be adding new dependencies without some discussion and review on debian-devel first. That's not technically required by policy, but pulling new packages into the transitively-essential package set has the same sort of potentially disruptive effect on upgrades that adding pre-depends does. But the only reason I see for a transitively-essential package to avoid using ucf unconditionally is if it *doesn't* have a dependency on it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
