Bill Allombert <ballo...@debian.org> writes: > Le Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 11:22:04PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin a écrit : >> On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 06:25:53PM +0100, Josh Triplett wrote: >> > What I'm suggesting here is that if every individual package that needs >> > awk has a Depends on it (via a package that allows switching >> > implementations), rather than relying on Essential, then it becomes >> > possible to make incremental progress, and that incremental progress >> > benefits people who are willing to carefully remove some of what Debian >> > normally always has installed packages. >> >> Should we start declaring deps on all essential packages explicitly? > > There are maintainers scripts that run without the dependencies installed > (or even without the package being installed). > They can only use Essential:yes packages. > There is no place to write such dependency currently.
How many of those scripts are really unavoidable? My view is that many pre/post-inst scripts are just hacks to work around some other problem. Maybe we can work towards reducing the need for these scripts to begin with. Having some mechanism to create package-specific users seems like one useful goal, and I don't understand why each package has to write scripts to invoke 'adduser' and deal with all the complexity around that on their own. There could be a declarative interface a package can use and say 'USERS+=saned' or 'USERS+=munin' or 'USERS+=openldap' and that's it. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
