Re: dpkg, ELF, upgrade order, broken systems
Fernando Alegre writes:
> I think your proposal is rather kludgy.
Only in the sense that all of dpkg is a kludge :-)
> I don't think it is justified to
> introduce a new field in the packaging database for using in a very
> specific (although important) problem which will not repeat in the future.
This is not quite correct. This will force an order of unpacking much like
the actual 'depends' line specifies the order that the postinst scripts must
be run. I think that the assertion that all packages could be unpacked in any
order is flawed.
This will be a problem any time any 'major' library gets a new major number,
or anything 'out of the ordinary' happens. Believing that this is the only
time this will be an issue is as shortsighted as not putting in the
functionality in the first place.
> I would prefer to have an "elf-update.deb" package whose content would be:
That would probably be a pain to make, unless it only contains the .deb files.
and in the postinst, it re-runs dpkg or something.
A script or detailed instructions, or a list of packages to upgrade would
probably be better.
Carl Streeter | "I'll forgive even GNU emacs as long
firstname.lastname@example.org | as gcc is available" --Linus Torvalds
Just another Perl hacker | "Etiquette-wise, there is no proper time
Ask me about Debian/GNU Linux. | to use the phrase 'It sucks.'" --Dogbert