On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 09:59:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > What I mean is that the current policy wording about essential > packages is sub-optimal. The important thing is not that essential > packages work even if they are unconfigured, the important thing is > that once they are configured (by debootstrap) they should not be > unconfigured again.
No -- they're unconfigured every time dpkg unpacks a new version. That's what "unconfigured" means. I think I understand what you're getting at, but I can't think of a way to say it. There's a problem that if there's a new required package then it has to fail to break any essential packages when you start unpacking and installing it. Mostly that can be handled by pre-depends: (for new libraries that essential packages need) and replaces: (for splitting essential packages), I think. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
pgpwWiy808j8g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
