On Jan 20, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Daniel Macks wrote:
If a user is not carfull the system might end up unusable due to e.g. a missing apt while running with UseBinaryDist.
That's not an "unusable" state, since fink will merely issue a "please install the apt pkg" warning. But anyway...
I think what was meant was using the binary distribution (ie: exclusively apt-get, no use of fink-the-program at all). Quite a number of users don't even have the DevTools installed, but just apt-get packages via the CLI or FinkCommander. If they lose apt, they're pretty screwed. You or I might know we could go to the Fink bindist on the web, download the .deb for apt, and re-install it via dpkg; but the average user wouldn't.
Perhaps this is an argument for making apt essential? If a significant portion of the user base is stuck should apt ever be removed, it seems to be pretty "essential" in the English sense of the word. Is there a technical reason that it isn't essential?
If debfoster uses apt, then debfoster should Depends:apt, since apt is not an Essential pkg (nor should it be IMO). That's a pretty fundamental packaging issue.
The problem is not that debfoster requires apt (it technically doesn't require it, though the default configuration does). Rather, the issue is that apt is nearly-but-not-quite essential for fink, so removal is allowed even though it may be a big problem for some users. And that debfoster seems to be removing some actually essential packages, too.
I don't know exactly how debfoster uses this keepers file, but assuming it's the "live" list of intentionally installed pkgs, gotta be very careful how to handle upgrades. The list of Essential files can change...don't want to don't want to overwrite a live datafile.
This is true. I think it's better to look at debfoster's facilities. The default debfoster.conf has 'UseEssential = yes', which should stop debfoster from removing essentials. So why are we seeing them being removed?
Dave
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
