On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 01:18:31PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, yes, more or less. In the example about gawk replacing mawk
> you'll see that at all times there is a working awk. I don't see
> a fundamental reason why this should not work for dash and bash.
It works for mawk/gawk because t
On Sat, Sep 28, 2002 at 01:53:58PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I was going to propose a patch against the current policy document,
> > > but there is a little problem:
> > >Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages while an
> > >essential package is in an unconfigured st
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> Well my proposed wording also recycles it, it just lets us get bits of
> it back from the admin in extreme circumstances.
In extreme circumstances we can always ask the admin no matter what
policy says.
Wichert.
--
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Several years ago it was agreed that awk would be essential (which
> > is currently implemented by a "Depends: awk" in base-files).
>
> Err, shouldn't base-files Pre-Depends: awk? (In effect, base-files is the
> "Essential: yes" package that provides
Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> immo vero scripsit:
> > > I'd rather document awk to be an exception to the clause
> > > because unilaterally loosening this clause will require us
> > > to further patch the debootstrap phase.
> >
> > What do you mean? You speak as if there
5 matches
Mail list logo
