Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 01:13:44PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Essential means that it's very difficult to remove the package and you >> have to jump through extreme hoops to do so, and that removing it may >> break the system. > Yes, but how is that different from Priority: required? Basically, there are times when you can, and want to, remove packages with Priority: required. But you don't get to do that with essential ones. >> As a result, no libraries are essential since libraries are removed >> when they're upgraded. > I noticed that; but aren't all packages removed when they're upgrade? Sorry, I was being sloppy in my wording. The issue with libraries is that the package name may change if the SONAME changes. Changing the package name of a package that's essential is incredibly painful. > My question isn't so much "why are some required packages not > essential?", but "Why is there a special mechanism for 'essential'?". > Why essential just another priority, for which dpkg has special tests? Historical reasons, probably. The case it allows (an essential package that's not required) doesn't sound useful. There *is* the potential issue that the Priority is somewhat under the control of ftp-master rather than the package maintainer due to the override file, but I don't know that that separation of powers is actually being used to any real purpose in this specific case. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
