On 2009-11-02 16:40:00 +0100, David Kalnischkies wrote: > The message says: > "This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!"
Well, this was "The following essential packages will be removed." I found confusing. > So it is already open to the fact that it is maybe wrong to consider > the package essential and that it is really safe to remove it, > but APT thinks it is a lot better to require the user to use special forces > (long confirm message, holds on uninstalled packages) in some cases > instead of let the user destroy his system in many more cases. > I don't see why a user could think of a "inconsistent database" after > read this message, maybe APT could say that this package > was/is/will _maybe_ an essential, but i guess this would be even more > confusing to a user. Suggestions for a better wording? > (I can't think of a better one) Perhaps it should be said that the essential state is package specific and not version specific, because packages may depend on them implicitly. Otherwise users who *think* they know, but are not aware of such subtle points, could incorrectly assume that removing the package is OK. > The "real" bug here showed by diff (and a few other before) > is therefore something like this: > New essential package A replaces old essential package B. > (Package B is now a transitional package to A.) > The user (with mixed sources) tries to deinstall package B and > apt refuses that as it thinks B is essential - it doesn't take into > account that A provides the same functionality as B. > > Could we agree on that it is a (very) minor bug? Yes. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arénaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org