Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-22 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote: 2010/3/21 Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es: This is a bug because, for example, once you upgrade an essential package like the real diff to a non-essential one like the dummy diff, the old essential package should not be considered essential

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-22 Thread David Kalnischkies
2010/3/22 Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es: On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote: 2010/3/21 Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es: This is a bug because, for example, once you upgrade an essential package like the real diff to a non-essential one like the dummy diff, the old essential

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-22 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote: I will further enlarge my example: Imagine you have a stable system with perl-base essential and you install a perl application from testing which also pulls in a newer non-essential perl-base. Remove the perl application now and run autoremove

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-22 Thread David Kalnischkies
2010/3/22 Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es: See why I say that Essential: yes means do not remove me easily, not install me if I'm not installed? No, i don't see it. Your remove is hard to do, but okay is absolutely not what essential says: I as a package maintainer want to release a package X

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-22 Thread Santiago Vila
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, David Kalnischkies wrote: 2010/3/22 Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es: See why I say that Essential: yes means do not remove me easily, not install me if I'm not installed? No, i don't see it. Your remove is hard to do, but okay is absolutely not what essential says:

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-21 Thread Julian Andres Klode
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 04:36:59AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: Julian Andres Klode escribió: forcemerge 177952 574729 thanks On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 04:27:14PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: Package: apt Version: 0.7.25.3 It seems apt-get installs new essential packages by default. This

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-21 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Julian Andres Klode wrote: No, you are drawing conclusions that are not in policy. apt-get would not violate policy, because policy does not say that apt-get should try to fix the system. It only tries it in dist-upgrade or when installing new packages; and not on

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-21 Thread Julian Andres Klode
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Julian Andres Klode wrote: No, you are drawing conclusions that are not in policy. apt-get would not violate policy, because policy does not say that apt-get should try to fix the system. It only

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-21 Thread Santiago Vila
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010, Julian Andres Klode wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 02:02:19PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: Otherwise, changing the essential package set would be a much more difficult thing. No, that's not true, and I wrote specifically about this case in the initial message for

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-21 Thread David Kalnischkies
2010/3/21 Santiago Vila sanv...@unex.es: This is a bug because, for example, once you upgrade an essential package like the real diff to a non-essential one like the dummy diff, the old essential package should not be considered essential anymore, even if it's available, i.e. it is the

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-20 Thread Santiago Vila
Package: apt Version: 0.7.25.3 It seems apt-get installs new essential packages by default. This *is* a bug. Please let me explain why: The purpose and meaning of the essential flag is, and it has always been should not be removed, *not* should be installed by default. Those two things might

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-20 Thread Julian Andres Klode
forcemerge 177952 574729 thanks On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 04:27:14PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: Package: apt Version: 0.7.25.3 It seems apt-get installs new essential packages by default. This *is* a bug. Please let me explain why: It is not, read Policy section 3.8: Essential is defined

Bug#574729: apt: essential is not a priority. apt-get should not install essential packages by default

2010-03-20 Thread Santiago Vila
Julian Andres Klode escribió: forcemerge 177952 574729 thanks On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 04:27:14PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: Package: apt Version: 0.7.25.3 It seems apt-get installs new essential packages by default. This *is* a bug. Please let me explain why: It is not, read Policy section