Debian Bug report logs - #826587
apt: misleading message on trying to remove Important:yes packages

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: apt: misleading message on trying to remove Important:yes packages

Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 19:29:44 +0200

Package: apt
Version: 1.2.12
Severity: minor

Hi!
When trying to remove an Important:yes package, the message claims it's
essential:

(gcc6-amd64-sbuild)root@umbar:/# apt-get purge init
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
The following package was automatically installed and is no longer required:
  sysvinit-core
Use 'apt autoremove' to remove it.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
  init*
WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed.
This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing!
  init
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
After this operation, 15.4 kB disk space will be freed.
You are about to do something potentially harmful.
To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I say!'
 ?] ^C
(gcc6-amd64-sbuild)root@umbar:/# apt-cache show init
<...>
Important: yes
<...>

(gcc6-amd64-sbuild)root@umbar:/# dpkg --purge init
(Reading database ... 11961 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing init (1.34) ...

Message #10 received at 826587@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 826587@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#826587: apt: misleading message on trying to remove Important:yes packages

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:48:12 +0200

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:29:44PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Package: apt
> Version: 1.2.12
> Severity: minor
> 
> Hi!
> When trying to remove an Important:yes package, the message claims it's
> essential:

Well, it sort of is. Not in the "Essential: yes" sense, but in a broader
sense. And we have not decided on an official name for that field, the
current one is just a very old one.

So, no idea what to do here.


-- 
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev

When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.

Message #15 received at 826587@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>

To: 826587@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#826587: apt: misleading message on trying to remove Important:yes packages

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:23:30 +0200

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:48:12PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:29:44PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > When trying to remove an Important:yes package, the message claims it's
> > essential:

> Well, it sort of is. Not in the "Essential: yes" sense, but in a broader
> sense.

My point is, the word "essential" has a specific meaning, so reusing it for
something only somewhat similar is bound to cause confusion -- at the least,
make the user think he's dealing with an actually Essential package.

There's a difference between needing the highest level of confirmation known
to apt and something dpkg doesn't even require confirmation for.

> we have not decided on an official name for that field, the current one is
> just a very old one.

In that case, perhaps using it in packages is premature?

> So, no idea what to do here.

Hmm, if you're still debating what Important should do (and even its very
name), making big changes here might indeed be a waste of effort because of
the risk of having to do them again.  Thus, what about changing just the
message for now?  An interface for overriding it can wait until you're happy
with the specs.


Meow!
-- 
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.

Message #20 received at 826587@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org>

To: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>, 826587@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#826587: apt: misleading message on trying to remove Important:yes packages

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 22:03:22 +0200

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:23:30PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 08:48:12PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 07:29:44PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > When trying to remove an Important:yes package, the message claims it's
> > > essential:
> 
> > Well, it sort of is. Not in the "Essential: yes" sense, but in a broader
> > sense.
> 
> My point is, the word "essential" has a specific meaning, so reusing it for
> something only somewhat similar is bound to cause confusion -- at the least,
> make the user think he's dealing with an actually Essential package.

The same applies to important, which is the main reason everyone wants a 
different name :/ (it's a historic artefact that I just re-used, it used
to mean the same as Essential in early APT versions; now it's basically: Do
not remove if already installed).

> 
> There's a difference between needing the highest level of confirmation known
> to apt and something dpkg doesn't even require confirmation for.
> 
> > we have not decided on an official name for that field, the current one is
> > just a very old one.
> 
> In that case, perhaps using it in packages is premature?

Not really, we're (I am) supporting it. It's mostly a matter of getting dpkg to support
it for extra safety that an official field would bring (dpkg would then require
--force-remove-somethinglikeessential to remove it).

Main use case so far was local system configuration meta packages, but init
systems and bootloaders seem like a very good thing as well. Basically anything
that should not be removed normally once installed.

> 
> > So, no idea what to do here.
> 
> Hmm, if you're still debating what Important should do (and even its very
> name), making big changes here might indeed be a waste of effort because of
> the risk of having to do them again.  Thus, what about changing just the
> message for now?  An interface for overriding it can wait until you're happy
> with the specs.

I'm not sure what you mean with overriding it - my problem is to
think of a more useful message...

-- 
Debian Developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev

When replying, only quote what is necessary, and write each reply
directly below the part(s) it pertains to (`inline'). Thank you.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.