On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 03:40:08PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So yes, I don't see any way around this exception for glibc. postfix > > would have no excuse, though. > Okay. From a Policy perspective, I don't really want to single out libc6 > unless I have to. Agreed. > Would it make sense to have a blanket exception for all > Essential packages, something like: > As an exception, essential packages may fall back on non-debconf > prompting if debconf is not available. > Or do we want to go a step farther and say that they can unconditionally > use non-debconf prompting? Both of these seem fine to me. I suppose debconf availability should be determined by whether /usr/share/debconf/confmodule can be sourced successfully? Are the debconf maintainers ok with that particular check as a guarantee? On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 03:58:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Okay. From a Policy perspective, I don't really want to single out > > libc6 unless I have to. Would it make sense to have a blanket exception > > for all Essential packages, something like: > > As an exception, essential packages may fall back on non-debconf > > prompting if debconf is not available. > Except, of course, libc6 isn't essential. Hm. Maybe just "essential > packages or packages depended on by essential packages," only worded > better. As an exception, to avoid pre-dependency loops essential packages and their pre-dependencies may fall back on non-debconf prompting if debconf is not available. ? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
