Josh Triplett wrote: > Sorry for the confusion. Though I'll still stand by the request in the > original report, and add to that the suggestion apt should probably > become essential, rather than just the internal concept of "Important", > to make that concept more visible.
Why? Presumably the idea of Important is that libapt users are relying on apt. APT has a sort of instinct (ok, heuristic) for self-preservation, which makes sure that after an interrupted upgrade the user will still be able to recover using familiar apt-based tools. That does not make APT essential in the Policy sense. I personally do not use apt much, and I am happy to have that option (for several reasons, including that it results in dpkg's interfaces being better specified and that we can experiment a little with the design of higher-level package management tools). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
