Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

2024-03-27 Thread Simon McVittie
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 at 14:43:40 +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > ke 27. maalisk. 2024 klo 14.00 Andrey Rakhmatullin (w...@debian.org) > kirjoitti: > > "Essential: yes" are always installed. Tools and dependencies assume they > > are installed. Bootstrapping tools install them implicitly. Packag

Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

2024-03-27 Thread Martin-Éric Racine
ke 27. maalisk. 2024 klo 14.00 Andrey Rakhmatullin (w...@debian.org) kirjoitti: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:29:50PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > > The documentation from deb-control(5) is: > > > > > > Protected: yes|no > > > This field is usually only needed when the answer is yes.

Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

2024-03-27 Thread Andrey Rakhmatullin
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 01:29:50PM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > The documentation from deb-control(5) is: > > > > Protected: yes|no > > This field is usually only needed when the answer is yes. It denotes > > a package that is required mostly for proper booting of the system or > >

Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

2024-03-27 Thread Martin-Éric Racine
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 21:27:09 -0700 Russ Allbery wrote: > Control: retitle -1 Document the Protected field > > Adam Borowski writes: > > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > > >> Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports > >> the field? I w

Processed: Re: Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

2023-09-11 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Processing control commands: > retitle -1 Document the Protected field Bug #872587 [debian-policy] debian-policy: please document "Important: yes" Changed Bug title to 'Document the Protected field' from 'debian-policy: please document "Important: yes"'. -- 872587: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-b

Bug#872587: Document the Protected field

2023-09-11 Thread Russ Allbery
Control: retitle -1 Document the Protected field Adam Borowski writes: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 02:28:22PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: >> Do you have any idea how long we can expect to wait until dpkg supports >> the field? I would suggest that we wait until dpkg has defined >> behaviour for th