David Kalnischkies wrote: > Stepping back for a second and freeing myself from the consequences: > How about dropping this question altogether? > > We have a flag which is (supposed to be) able to skip this question: > --force-yes which is described as being potentially harmful in the manpage. > > Rational: > Users who run into this question by 'accident' aren't saying yes to it; > Users who know they will because they are changing e.g. the init system > are just annoyed by the question. > > So how about: > […] > 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 5 to remove and 0 not upgraded. > After this operation, 5509 kB disk space will be freed. > > WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed: > apt > The outlined actions are potentially very harmful, so executing them > is refused by default, but can be forced with the --force-yes flag. > This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! > # > > (I am open for a better suggestion regarding the actual message) > > It would be an interface change, but those aren't a problem, people > depending on the old one could just keep using the old version. SCNR. > What I really mean is: In this particular case, I really hope nobody > is doing something as insane as depending on this. [0] > > What do you two think? I'm rather against that.
--force-all does't only force removal of essential packages, but also AFAIK installation from untrusted sources, etc. More generally, I think that options like "--force-all" shouls /never/ be recommanded as good practices. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) That's why I'm more in favor of "Yes, I do understand this can be harmful." Best regards, -- fabien givors -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
