Чт 07 сен 2017 @ 13:40 Nicholas D Steeves <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 04:49:35PM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote: > I also feel like it would be a good idea to have findutils in the > depends, but what I understood from policy prohibits this. For > example, > > Packages are not required to declare any dependencies they have on > other packages which are marked Essential (see below), and should > not do so unless they depend on a particular version of that > package.4 > > and from the footnote > > 4 Essential is needed in part to avoid unresolvable dependency loops > on upgrade. If packages add unnecessary dependencies on packages in > this set, the chances that there will be an unresolvable dependency > loop caused by forcing these Essential packages to be configured > first before they need to be is greatly increased. It also increases > the chances that frontends will be unable to calculate an upgrade > path, even if one exists. Also, functionality is rarely ever > removed from the Essential set, but packages have been removed from > the Essential set when the functionality moved to a different > package. So depending on these packages just in case they stop being > essential does way more harm than good. > > I would like to avoid doing more harm than good ;-) OK, I see your point. It should not be in dependencies. Cheers! Lev
