Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I find it hard to believe that this thread can reasonably go from
> "there's no need for output at all for any reason" to "there's a need
> for so much output that we must be able to categorise it and filter it,
> and to hell with backwards compatability".
No, the current situation has alot of output and this thread started
because people want to see less - managing the output we already have
seems to be a reasonable middle ground.
> > We haven't had to use something like that in a long time. I don't think
> > it will be as effective these days.
> You'll be unable to install the .deb until your dpkg correctly supports
> versioned provides (the preinst would fail), and apt won't have any idea
> how to do the upgrade. This seems about exactly the same as previously.
Er, I ment that using --asserts create confusing problems for the end user
and preclude any possibility of a safe automatic upgrade. It is fortunate
APT's ordering algorithms 'get lucky' and tend to install dpkg early on in
the process - otherwise doing this would create a huge mess.
As it is now APT aborts on versioned provides so the user has a clear
indication they need to upgrade stuff. It could do it more elegently, but
thats what we have <shrug>.
[BTW, I haven't seen V-P's pass through policy, and I haven't seen a spec
for them. APT still does not parse them..]
> [0] One possibility might be having Apt try to just ignore all the stanzas
> it can't understand and try to upgrade itself if it finds the Packages
This is a solution I have been contemplating for a while, I'm not sure
how well it will work overall. It does sound good..
Jason
Reply to: