Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> It was our intention (at that time) to make awk a "virtual
Santiago> essential package"? If yes, was it dropped?
Yes. The only way to do this is by having an essential package
depend on it (we can't have virtual packages marked essential, see?
Santiago> There is an atonishing low number of packages having a
Santiago> "Depends: awk". Should somebody start filing bugs against
Santiago> packages which depends on awk without declaring the
Santiago> dependency?
The only bug is that the base-files maintainer dropped the
depends line without understanding the consequences. File a bug
against base-files, and possibly against any package explicitly
depending on awk (I wouldn't, but certain people seem to have a great
deal of fun filing bug reports ;-)
Once base-files again depends on awk, then an awk variant
shall always be at hand, and packages do not need to depend
explicitly on it.
manoj
--
My boss just told the quote-of-the-day(TM) after talking to our
friendly IBM salesguy who said: "You've got be careful about getting
locked into open systems." Heh! Why don't I trust these people? :-)
Ian Dickinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
