On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Javier Serrano Polo wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for > >> helping people evaluate that first step. > > > > Here is a rough plan: > > > > 1. Policy: Packages should declare all their dependencies, even > > essential ones. > > I agree: this is the right first step. > > More specifically, it's the right first three steps. > > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#dependencies > currently says > > Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they > have on other packages which are marked Essential (see below), > and should not do so unless they depend on a particular > version of that package.[4] > > [4] [...] If packages add unnecessary dependencies on packages > in this set, the chances that there will be an unresolvable > dependency loop caused by forcing these Essential packages to > be configured first before they need to be is greatly > increased. > > I'd propose that as a first step we change that to > > Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they > have on other packages which are marked Essential (see below), > but are permitted to do so even if they do not depend on a > particular version of that package.[4] > > [4] Functionality is rarely ever removed from the Essential > set, but packages have been removed from the Essential set > when the functionality moved to a different package. So when > depending on these packages for such functionality, it is > recommended to depend on an appropriate virtual package > instead. > > Future versions of Debian policy may encourage and then > require including explicit dependencies even for essential > functionality. This is helpful to users putting together > ultra-minimal systems (though Debian does not support omitting > Essential functionality out of the box), and it means less > work is required in case the moment comes to remove some > functionality from the Essential set in the future. > > (The next two steps would be to change that from "are permitted" to > "should", and then to "must".) > > What do you think?
That sounds great to me. This would mean that there'd be no policy violation involved if someone wanted to send out patches working towards making a package non-Essential. It's a good incremental step.
