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
> >
> >
Processing control commands:
> retitle -1 Permit packages to declare dependencies on Essential packages
Bug #954794 [debian-policy] New packages must not declare themselves Essential
Changed Bug title to 'Permit packages to declare dependencies on Essential
packages' from 'New packages must not
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
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
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,
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
> "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
23 matches
Mail list logo
