>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> 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 depend on a particular >> version of that package.[4] Bill> This is very dangerous with respect to upgrade between stable Bill> releases. The issue is at the time a package is made for a Bill> stable release, the state of Debian and Essential: yes Bill> packages is not known. It is unrealistic to expect Debian to Bill> plan so far in advance. Requiring changes to Essential Bill> packages to take into account spurious dependencies is too Bill> fragile. I'm sorry, but I consider myself reasonably knowledgable about package dependencies and Debian--not admittedly as knowledgable as you, but knowledgable enough that I ought to be able to follow this discussion. And after spending a couple minutes thinking about the above I don't understand what you are getting at. So, please explain in enough detail that we are able to understand and evaluate your concern.