At 13:48 -0600 1998-03-24, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> However, in this case, I do see netbase uses ps in the
> postinst to see if the daemaons are awake, and postgresql in the
> preinst to see if the postmaster is running. So two packages use this
> directly.
>
> In the latter case, it m
Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> Ok, ok, please no flames. I simply did not remember that discussion.
No flames intended, I like the fact that there are people out there checking
packages.
> Definitely we need a list of essential and required packages explaining
> why they are essential and why they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Craig Small wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Is there a reason why this package lost his essential flag?
> This was discussed in debian-devel about 3 months ago, the consensus was
> it is not essential. Neither was psmisc.
Ok, ok, please
Santiago Vila wrote:
> From the list, I can see just one exception: procps
>
> procps was essential in Debian 1.3.1, but it is not essential in hamm.
> procps contains the important /bin/ps binary (which is certainly used in
> maintainer scripts, either directly or indirectly through the init.d
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Fine.
Summary: Either
1) procps is(should be) essential. or
2) procps is not(should not be) essential.
If 1), I would propose to add Pre-Depends fields for libc6.
If 2), then someone should report a bug against netbase for using
ps in the postinst without hav
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Well, if /bin/ps is not essential to the system, why it is in /bin?
Because it is very useful for diagnosing problems needed to mount a
possibly remote /usr volume. And that's the traditional location for ps.
But you don't need it to repair the packagi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Well, if /bin/ps is not essential to the system, why it is in /bin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNRgQfiqK7IlOjMLFAQFMlQP/eSQNds3w/1JjznI/YWEq8vRJgBcljPtX
UVE+L2oNiWRrLRi8eDQ6mJ+7naqVBr7sMpeNvRXujEik9WgVoCfHc/yopUjJ6bVi
Hi,
Please do not report a bug. Things like Essentialness or
required/important status even, should be discussed on the policy
list. The operative word is discussed.
However, in this case, I do see netbase uses ps in the
postinst to see if the daemaons are awake, and postgresql
At 11:48 +0100 1998-03-24, Santiago Vila wrote:
>procps was essential in Debian 1.3.1, but it is not essential in hamm.
>procps contains the important /bin/ps binary (which is certainly used in
>maintainer scripts, either directly or indirectly through the init.d
>scripts).
Which packages have mai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23 Mar 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> This is easy enough to discover. Twenty packages. (mbr procps
> adduser setserial passwd ncurses3.4 e2fslibsgcomerr2g libc6 makedev
> modconf syslinuxkbd ss2g ae modutils timezones libreadlineg2 mawk
> sysklogd)
Hi,
This is easy enough to discover. Twenty packages. (mbr procps
adduser setserial passwd ncurses3.4 e2fslibsgcomerr2g libc6 makedev
modconf syslinuxkbd ss2g ae modutils timezones libreadlineg2 mawk
sysklogd).
manoj
__> perl ~/find_pkg.pl '^Priority:\s*required' '(?:(Package
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
I wrote:
> tell me example of required package whose removal "can leave your system
> totally FUBAR" but it is not essential. I will submit a bug immediately
> if there is such package.
Well, James Troup has kindly e-mailed me in private to tell me that my
last
According to Santiago Vila:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > > 7. sysvinit's changelog says: "Depends on new dpkg for the new
> > > update-rc.d" Well, if this is a simple Depends, then we can install
> > > sysvinit without upgrading dpkg, and dpkg would not even complain. Bad
> > >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23 Mar 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > That's not enough reason to make a package Essential, the policy
> > > manual clearly states that removing a required package can leave
> > > your system totally FUBAR, [...]
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > That's not enough reason to make a package Essential, the policy
> > manual clearly states that removing a required package can leave
> > your system totally FUBAR, [...]
>
> ... in which case it should be probably essential also.
No. That's not wha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
James Troup writes:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I can't see any reason for ncurses-bin to be essential.
> >
> > Well, I can see a reason: if the console is so messed up that you
> > don't even see "dpkg" when you write it, and you have not
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I can't see any reason for ncurses-bin to be essential.
>
> Well, I can see a reason: if the console is so messed up that you
> don't even see "dpkg" when you write it, and you have not clear or
> reset, then you have a problem.
That's not enough rea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 23 Mar 1998, James Troup wrote:
> I can't see any reason for ncurses-bin to be essential.
Well, I can see a reason: if the console is so messed up that you don't
even see "dpkg" when you write it, and you have not clear or reset, then
you have a problem. (Y
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 7. sysvinit's changelog says: "Depends on new dpkg for the new
> > update-rc.d" Well, if this is a simple Depends, then we can install
> > sysvinit without upgrading dpkg, and dpkg would not even complain. Bad
> > thin
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think that no package should (or indeed does) use `clear' or
> > `reset' in its preinst or without using a dependency.
>
> Do you mean ncurses-bin should not be essential?
I think he did, and either way I can't see any reason for ncurses-bin
to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. ncurses-bin contains "clear" and "reset", among others. If this
> > package is essential, then those commands are allowed to be used in
> > maintainer scripts.
>
> I think I disagree with `if this package ... scrip
> 3. ncurses-bin contains "clear" and "reset", among others. If this
> package is essential, then those commands are allowed to be used in
> maintainer scripts.
I think I disagree with `if this package ... scripts'. It may not be
explicitly stated anywhere, but I think it's reasonable for a packa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Santiago Vila writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
> ...
> > For example, if diff is essential, it should Pre-Depends on libc6, because
> > otherwise maintainer scr
Santiago Vila writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
...
> For example, if diff is essential, it should Pre-Depends on libc6, because
> otherwise maintainer scripts which use it would fail. Right?
Yes. But if diff3 uses a different library, that wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I'm sorry, what precise policy change is being proposed ?
>
> It is currently policy that Essential packages have to use Pre-Depends
> for things which they need to support the packaging system. They
> should use Depen
Christian Schwarz writes ("Re: need input: essential packages and pre-depends"):
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > > Recall, that there was a discussion on this topic between Feb 9 and Feb
> > >
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> >
> > Recall, that there was a discussion on this topic between Feb 9 and Feb
> > 18, with subject line "awk: essential virtual package?"
> >
> > We discussed the suggestion that all essential packa
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if this is the best option, technically it still leaves
> > problems (upgrades of essential depends) and it makes the system less
> > likely to install correctly with the current dpkg/dselec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is the best option, technically it still leaves
> problems (upgrades of essential depends) and it makes the system less
> likely to install correctly with the current dpkg/dselect setup.
Probab
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
>
> Recall, that there was a discussion on this topic between Feb 9 and Feb
> 18, with subject line "awk: essential virtual package?"
>
> We discussed the suggestion that all essential packages have to use
> Pre-Depends instead of Depends.
I have
Recall, that there was a discussion on this topic between Feb 9 and Feb
18, with subject line "awk: essential virtual package?"
We discussed the suggestion that all essential packages have to use
Pre-Depends instead of Depends.
I remember that a lot of people agreed on this, but I also remembe
31 matches
Mail list logo
