Re: essential vs. required vs. base

2005-11-10 Thread Frank Küster
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I'm including the context diff between essential packages and required >> ones. Since essential implies required, why isn't there simply another >> priority class, instead of a separate "Essential" field?? >

Re: essential vs. required vs. base

2005-11-09 Thread Russ Allbery
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:13:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> Essential means that it's very difficult to remove the package and you >> have to jump through extreme hoops to do so, and that removing it may >> break the system. > Yes, but how is that

Re: essential vs. required vs. base

2005-11-09 Thread Justin Pryzby
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:13:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Packages marked "Essential: yes" have to be operational before they are > > configured, and packages need not (and should not) depend on them, in > > the same was as they needn't and sho

Re: essential vs. required vs. base

2005-11-09 Thread Russ Allbery
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Packages marked "Essential: yes" have to be operational before they are > configured, and packages need not (and should not) depend on them, in > the same was as they needn't and shouldn't to build-depend on > build-essential packages such as gcc and mak

essential vs. required vs. base

2005-11-09 Thread Justin Pryzby
Packages marked "Essential: yes" have to be operational before they are configured, and packages need not (and should not) depend on them, in the same was as they needn't and shouldn't to build-depend on build-essential packages such as gcc and make. Essential packages are also the only ones which