On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Enrique Zanardi wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 12:27:25AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > reassign 34223 packaging-manual
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Well, whatever you want Santiago. This is an essential APT feature, I will
> > > not remove it just because it offends you.
> >
> > Uh? AFAICT, he's not asking you to remove it. He's suggesting you to ask
> > for a change on the packaging-manual, as it currently forbids apt
> > behaviour. [...]
>
> In fact I'm not asking anything but a little bit of consistency.
> Either APT is wrong or the packaging manual is wrong, that's all.
Well, I am just going to assume you are talking about this quote:
If set to `yes' then `dpkg' and `dselect' will refuse to remove the
package (though it can be upgraded and/or replaced). The other
possible value is `no', which is the same as not having the field at
all.
Which isn't even a completely valid description of essential (let alone
forbiding apt's behavoir). APT's behavior is now however perfectly
consistent with the Policy Manual:
Since these packages can not easily be removed (you'll have to specify
an extra _force option_ to `dpkg') this flag should only be used where
absolutely necessary. A shared library package should not be tagged
_essential_--the dependencies will prevent its premature removal, and
we need to be able to remove it when it has been superseded.
Ignoring the bracketed expression APT does the 'can not easily be removed'
bit.
Jason
