On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 01:59:30PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 08:08:34AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 01:31:14AM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 11:59:34AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > I've never liked the rule that you don't have to declare dependencies on > > > > essential packages and would love to phase it out as much as possible (I > > > > think even intermediate movement in that direction would be useful), but > > > > I'd like Guillem to weigh in from a dpkg perspective to indicate whether > > > > this makes sense to him and whether I'm missing something. > > > > > > This rule is vital to allow for smooth transition when essential > > > programs are moved from one package to another. > > > > It's not? We have programs moving from one package to another all the > > time outside the set of Essential packages, and the sky isn't falling. > > Remember the libc5 to libc6 transition ?
Honestly? No. It's been long enough that I hadn't even heard of Debian when it happened, let along that I would be involved (and I have been involved in Debian since 2001). I don't believe this is a coincidence; our processes to do such transitions have improved vastly since those days, and I do not think that we will have another transition as involved as the libc one. -- To the thief who stole my anti-depressants: I hope you're happy -- seen somewhere on the Internet on a photo of a billboard
