On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 09:10:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Erik Andersen wrote:
> > Doing depends will cetainly be too nasty for a shell scriot, so if we really
> > want to include depends, then I agree that doing udpkg in C is the way
> > to go.
> Yes, we really do need depends. As Randolph says, partly to make sure it
> doesn't screw up a system too badly[1], and also, because it'll be nice if
> modules in the installer can have dependencies on other modules.
How would you actually handle those dependencies though? Presumably you
don't have a udselect that'll automatically find any debs that anything
depends on, nor a uapt to do just automatically install them; you don't
guarantee any ordering so running udpkg -i foo.deb bar.deb won't bother
install bar before foo just because foo depends on bar...
Why not just declare udpkg -i to be equivalent to dpkg --force-depends
--force-conflicts -i, or so?
(I'm using "u" to represent micro, for those who haven't guessed already,
btw :)
Will udpkg also do --remove? Or cope with debs that include the same file?
For a recovery/minimal install, just treating depends as though they
didn't exist seems pretty convenient to me, actually. :-/
A uapt-get that lets you say "uapt-get install <foo>" and *does* cope
with resolving dependencies (but not conflicts, versions, or multiple
Packages files, perhaps) might be useful too, without being too difficult
or large. Hmmm. It really depends on what you want to use it for, though.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgpD4hWmTdD6s.pgp
Description: PGP signature