-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 18 Feb 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > Perhaps we should just make mawk and gawk to Pre-Depend on libc6
> > instead?
>
> With all due respect, you've 100% missed the point of making awk an
> essential
On 18 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >>"Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christian> On 18 Feb 1998, James Troup wrote:
>
> Christian> [extremly essential vs. essential]
>
> Christian> I fully agree to what James said. So I think it would be
> Christi
Hi,
>>"Christian" == Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christian> On 18 Feb 1998, James Troup wrote:
Christian> [extremly essential vs. essential]
Christian> I fully agree to what James said. So I think it would be
Christian> good to check out all "Essential" packages in which
Chris
On 18 Feb 1998, James Troup wrote:
[extremly essential vs. essential]
I fully agree to what James said. So I think it would be good to check out
all "Essential" packages in which category they fall.
Note, that from the package system's view, there shouldn't be a difference
between these two cate
Hi,
[discussion on how a broken depends in procps does not really
kill the system]
Maybe the correct wuestion is if procps needs t be essential?
Does anyone remember the reason why? I did not think that procps
binaries are essential -- required maybe (why even that?) but
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, James Troup seems to think that there are two types of
> essential packages, "essential" ones and "really essential" ones. I
> would like to hear his opinion on this.
I brought up the idea of "extremely essential" packages for the simple
reason
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Tue, 17 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> On 16 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> I must admit I didn't notice this discussion until I saw the discussion
> about the bug reports on this topic. Could someone please explain in a few
> sentences the tech
On 16 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[snip]
> In conclusion, I think we do need awk to be an essential
> package, and failing a mechanism to mark a virtual package essential,
> I think base-files should again depend on awk.
I fully agree. Unless there are any objections: Santiago, plea
Hi,
Looking back at my interaction on this thread, and looking
again at the changelog, I have come to the realization that I have
been making an ass of myself out here.
Santiago, please accept my apologies. You were not in the
wrong, and definitely did not deserve the flammage
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> The base-files maintainer asked Christian about the issue,
Santiago> who then asked in debian-policy, and NOBODY answered saying
Santiago> "yes, this is the right thing to do", so he then removed the
Santiago> depends line because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 16 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The only bug is that the base-files maintainer dropped the
> depends line without understanding the consequences.
The base-files maintainer asked Christian about the issue, who then asked
in debian-policy, and NO
On Mon, Feb 16, 1998 at 01:10:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Package mawk, which provides awk, is required. If base files
> depends on awk, it wold also be essential. I think rather than
> filing about 1700 bug reports against packages that use awk,
> base-files package sho
Hi,
>>"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Santiago> It was our intention (at that time) to make awk a "virtual
Santiago> essential package"? If yes, was it dropped?
Yes. The only way to do this is by having an essential package
depend on it (we can't have virtual pack
Hi,
Package mawk, which provides awk, is required. If base files
depends on awk, it wold also be essential. I think rather than
filing about 1700 bug reports against packages that use awk,
base-files package should again depend on awk. packages should not
have to declare dependencies o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> Santiago (base-files maintainer) pointed out that the current base-files
> package depends on the virtual package `awk' which makes awk `implicitely'
> essential.
>
> (With that it is guaranteed, that _some_ awk ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
On 9 Feb 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Can we have essential virtual packages? I was under the
> impression that to do so one made a real essential package depend on
> the said virtual package (which descibes the current situation).
Exactly, the issue
Hi,
Can we haveessential virtual packages? I was under the
impression that to do so one made a real essential package depend on
the said virtual package (which descibes the current situation).
manoj
--
"Neighbors!! We got neighbors! We ain't supposed to have any
neighbors,
Santiago (base-files maintainer) pointed out that the current base-files
package depends on the virtual package `awk' which makes awk `implicitely'
essential.
(With that it is guaranteed, that _some_ awk version is always installed,
either gawk or mawk or both.)
This brings up the following que
18 matches
Mail list logo
