> > ... You must not remove these packages or your system may become > totally broken and you may not even be able to use dpkg to put > things back" > > I'm rather confused (wrt the understanding of the policy)... The > two parts of this sentence do not deal necessary with the same > concept. BTW, if a "system" is broken I (probably) won't use dpkg > to put "things back", so the usability of dpkg in emergency > circumstances is rather uncertain ... >
the underlying group of packages "essential" make the assumption that each other exists. removing one of them makes the others unusable. dpkg itself makes the assumption that essential exists and will thus also break and be unable to help you get back a usable system. As for not using dpkg, see my next section. > Suppose I remove 'dpkg' on a file server, what's the problem ?? > The "system" (but which one are we speaking about?) remains in a > satisafaying state since it continues to deliver the service it > is intended for : file server. > You never upgrade your boxes? Ever? Why remove dpkg? Or more to the point, why use Debian to install linux and then remove Debian? We as a project make the assumption that you want Debian Linux, not Linux.
