On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 09:29:33PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Josh Triplett wrote: > > > Sorry for the confusion. Though I'll still stand by the request in the > > original report, and add to that the suggestion apt should probably > > become essential, rather than just the internal concept of "Important", > > to make that concept more visible. > > Why? > > Presumably the idea of Important is that libapt users are relying on > apt. APT has a sort of instinct (ok, heuristic) for self-preservation, > which makes sure that after an interrupted upgrade the user will still > be able to recover using familiar apt-based tools. > > That does not make APT essential in the Policy sense. I personally do > not use apt much, and I am happy to have that option (for several > reasons, including that it results in dpkg's interfaces being better > specified and that we can experiment a little with the design of > higher-level package management tools).
OK, I see your point. In fairness, I don't actually care about the contents of /usr/bin in the apt package, just libapt and /usr/lib/apt/methods. Those form part of the apt package too, though. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
