Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Raul Miller
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > > Unfortunately, there are some failure modes we don't have enough > > control over. On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > This is the only point during dpkg's operation where a failure of dpkg is > catastrophic. IMHO essential

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Anthony Towns wrote: > How about coming up with something better then? The mechanism APT uses is that Essential packages implicitly make their dependencies also Essential for installation order - this means things like libc6 are unpacked and configured immediately. IHMO this

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Jason Gunthorpe
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Raul Miller wrote: > Unfortunately, there are some failure modes we don't have enough > control over. This is the only point during dpkg's operation where a failure of dpkg is catastrophic. IMHO essential packages should make a 'best effort' to ensure that they have the highe

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Raul Miller
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 02:12:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Finishing unpacking isn't exactly a dpkg abort, though. Maybe > `This means the package must be functional even before it has been > configured when upgrading and after any dpkg abort.' ? Unfortunately, there are some failure modes w

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Dec 10, 1999 at 02:06:47AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote: > Furthermore, it occurs to me that the problem isn't just essential > packages. If libc6 fails to work during an upgrade, we're equally bad > off, but libc6 isn't essential. So, the proposal is not only > ambiguous and redundant, but

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Chris Waters
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 9 Dec 1999, Chris Waters wrote: > > > I'm a little bit afraid that this opens the door to endless debates > > about what the "core functionality" of a package is. For example, I > > would have considered the "core functionality" of the bash packag

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

1999-12-09 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 12:37:44PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 10:24:37AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > Personally I would increase the strength of the wording to be more like: > > An essential package is one that can never stop working. This means any > > dpkg abort