xXx

Hexid M1n1 5h3ll MobiLe

proc/thread-self/root/usr/share/doc/dpkg/spec/_[ Not.Writable ]

File://proc/thread-self/root/usr/share/doc/dpkg/spec/protected-field.txt

Support for a Protected field
=============================

Status: draft, experimental
URL: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/Spec/ProtectedField

Summary
-------

The goal of the following proposal is to standardize a field to split
part of the «Essential» packages, and add support for it in the package
management stack. There is currently an Important field, that has the
correct semantics but has a very confusing name and is only supported
by apt anyway, so this new field would phase out that one.

Background
----------

Our current use of «Essential: yes» is confused, and it includes several
conflated things, some of which would be worth splitting up.

We use «Essential» to:

  * Denote that a package must be always installed and cannot be
    removed (easily), because it is essential to the system in some way.
  * Denote that a package must be functional even when just unpacked
    (after having been configured once / fully bootstrapped).
  * Mark auto-vivification, by making front-ends either complain very
    loudly or reinstalling these packages when missing.
  * Minimize dependency loops, by making these dependencies implicit.

One problem is that the first point above includes being essential for
the packaging system during upgrades/installation, for the operation
of the system in general, and for the operation of the system during
boot.

The latter is not always necessary though, for example within a chroot,
or some types of containers. There has been work on trying to trim down
the pseudo-essential set as can be seen from:

  <https://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/EssentialOnDiet>
  <https://wiki.debian.org/BusterPriorityRequalification>

And several of these switches made use of a pre-existing field called
«Important», defined and currently only supported by apt, which had the
following properties:

  * These packages are not required to be installed.
  * They do not have to be usable while unconfigured.
  * Dependencies need to be spelled out.

Proposal
--------

The proposal would be to add support for a new Protected field, with the
following properties:

  * Protected packages should not be trivial to remove (require a force
    option for example, like «Essential»).
  * Protected packages should not be required to be installed (i.e. once
    removed they should not be automatically brought back by a front-end,
    unlike «Essential»).
  * Protected packages must be depended on explicitly (unlike «Essential»).
  * Protected packages must be functional even when unpacked (think of
    a boot loader or an init system; like «Essential»). [XXX: This one is
    not entirely clear and might not match reality anyway, for example kernels,
    which might require building an initramfs, etc.]

This would make it possible to phase out the current «Important» field
usage (because it has a name too confusing relative to the «Priority»
value; and has small tooling coverage) and the usage of «Essential» for
at least packages involved in the boot process, and perhaps also for
packages essential for operation of the system in general (in contrast
to packages required for the packaging system).

Your Access Expired	Date. in : 19-09-2025
Regist : 09-12-2024	Expired : 01-12-2027