Hi,
Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon 16 Nov 2020 at 04:12AM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 13:30:13 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>>> Could I ask you to explain your wanting to reduce the Essential set for
>>> the sake of small installation size in more detail, including some
>>>
Hello,
On Mon 16 Nov 2020 at 04:12AM +01, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 13:30:13 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> Could I ask you to explain your wanting to reduce the Essential set for
>> the sake of small installation size in more detail, including some
>> numbers, please? It
On Sat, 2020-11-07 at 13:30:13 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Could I ask you to explain your wanting to reduce the Essential set for
> the sake of small installation size in more detail, including some
> numbers, please? It would be good to get to the bottom of Bill's worry
> about this change,
On Wed, 2020-09-30 at 18:34:06 -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Josh Triplett wrote:
> > Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > > Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > > This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential, nor
> > > > does it propose that any specific package become non-Essential.
> > >
> >
On Sun, 2020-10-18 at 11:43:18 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > More specifically, it's the right first three steps.
> >
> > https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#dependencies
> > currently says
> >
> >
control: retitle -1 Permit packages to declare dependencies on Essential
packages
Hello Josh,
On Sat 17 Oct 2020 at 04:49PM -07, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>
>> More specifically, it's the right first three steps.
>>
>>
> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
>> I'd propose that as a first step we change that to
>>
>> Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have
>> on other packages which are marked Essential (see below), but are
>> permitted to do so even if they do not
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder
> > wrote:
>
> >> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for
> >> helping people evaluate that first step.
> >
> > Here is a
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 11:56:19AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder
> > wrote:
>
> >> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for
> >> helping people evaluate that first step.
> >
> > Here is a
Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder
> wrote:
>> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for
>> helping people evaluate that first step.
>
> Here is a rough plan:
>
>1. Policy: Packages should declare all their dependencies, even
On Wed, 07 Oct 2020 18:43:22 -0400 Sam Hartman
wrote:
> C) I'd support non-normative documentation that we don't expect to
> approve new essential packages in the future in policy.
Worthless documentation, I think.
> A) I do support reducing the essential set over time
Fine, then you should
Hello,
On Wed 07 Oct 2020 at 06:43pm -04, Sam Hartman wrote:
> Josh, my current reading is that there is not support for even the
> first step. I believe Guillem and I have disagreed, and I haven't
> noticed support from anyone other than you.
Speaking as Policy Editor, I agree. I don't see
> "Josh" == Josh Triplett writes:
Josh> Long-term, I'd like to see that happen. But I'm a huge fan of
Josh> incremental steps; defining the problem as "eliminate
Josh> Essential" makes it both difficult enough and controversial
Josh> enough to make it unlikely to happen at
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:34:06 -0700 Jonathan Nieder
wrote:
> Even so, some *rough* consensus on the plan is very useful for
> helping people evaluate that first step.
Here is a rough plan:
1. Policy: Packages should declare all their dependencies, even
essential ones.
2. Make easier
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Josh Triplett wrote:
>>> This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential, nor
>>> does it propose that any specific package become non-Essential.
>>
>> I think I'd be more supportive of this change if it did. Freezing the
>>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 05:23:38PM -0700, jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Josh Triplett wrote:
>
> > Over the years, "Essential" has made it difficult to reduce installation
> > size, to reduce chroot/container size, or to coordinate various
> > transitions. Removing something from the
Hi,
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Over the years, "Essential" has made it difficult to reduce installation
> size, to reduce chroot/container size, or to coordinate various
> transitions. Removing something from the Essential set requires tracking
> down every package using it, adding a dependency,
El dt 29 de 09 de 2020 a les 15:08 -0700, Josh Triplett va escriure:
> I want to avoid letting the problem get any worse.
So Essential packages are a problem. Do you want to remove Essential in
the long-term? If this goal is not clear, there is little point in
changing policy. New Essential
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 05:15:45PM +0200, Javier Serrano Polo wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:00:04 -0700 Josh Triplett > wrote:
> > This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential,
>
> What is the point of Essential? To omit declaring dependencies on the
> false assumption
El dl 21 de 09 de 2020 a les 17:15 +0200, Javier Serrano Polo va
escriure:
> Do you want to remove Essential?
Since it looks like you do not try to eliminate Essential, I will close
this report.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:00:04 -0700 Josh Triplett wrote:
> This change does not propose eliminating the concept of Essential,
What is the point of Essential? To omit declaring dependencies on the
false assumption that some packages are always required by all systems;
the concept is essentially
> "Bill" == Bill Allombert writes:
Bill> But is it an actual problem ? Do we see packages marked
Bill> Essential: yes by mistake ?
I think Josh's analysis brought up some important points for me that I
did not consider before and that need to be considered making decisions
in the
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 05:14:13AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I concur with the comments raised so far.
>
> I think it would be great to do a better job of outlining the problems
> with essential packages in debian-policy.
...
> I would support a statement in policy that as of the time of
I concur with the comments raised so far.
I think it would be great to do a better job of outlining the problems
with essential packages in debian-policy.
I don't understand why we would tie our hands though.
A consensus of debian-devel seems adequate to consider those issues and
evaluate them.
Hello,
On Mon 23 Mar 2020 at 04:29PM +01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> I do not think this proposal make sense _as a Debian policy change_.
> What I mean is that if the release team decide that some new packages
> need to be marked Essential: yes for some technical reason, then either
> policy will
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 08:00:04AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 4.5.0.0
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
>
> Previously discussed on the mailing list, which led to a request for
> concrete Policy language.
I do not think this proposal make sense _as a Debian
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.5.0.0
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Previously discussed on the mailing list, which led to a request for
concrete Policy language.
Over the years, "Essential" has made it difficult to reduce installation
size, to reduce chroot/container size, or to coordinate
27 matches
Mail list logo
