Re: Proposed recompilation to remove dependency on libc6 2.0.7u
Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Clearly, having to [I]nstall twice will be better than having to [I]nstall
> > > three times, and also once is better than twice.
> > >
> > > Don't you see still a reason to recompile essential packages?
> >
> > No. But you can convince me, maybe you can. :)
> >
> > Nobody is able to upgrade only essential package with dselect and
> > a regular slink archive. You're always upgrading a lot of other
> > packages at the same time, unless you set all others on hold. Thus
> > it would make sense to recompile all packages that provide too strong
> > dependencies - or none of them.
>
> All or nothing? I think you have missed the point completely.
Possibly.
> dpkg *refuses* to even unpack a package when a Pre-dependency is not met,
> which is not true for normal dependencies.
So what? Run [I]nstall again and feel happy.
> Hence, and additional [I]nstall stage could be needed if there is any
> essential package having a wrong dependency (i.e. predependency).
This additional stage might be needed anyway to
> You must have serious reasons not to want to avoid an additional
> [I]nstall stage, but I'm unable to guess them.
I don't mind having a 2nd install call, a 2nd configure run etc.
Since system integrity does not break by doing so I don't see
an urgent need to recompile these packages for slink, hence forcing
all affected ports to also compile them, hence to wait for their
installation, hence for their testing etc.
If there are serious problems with certain packages they need
to be fixed, that's out of question, but I don't feel that
these packages produce serious problems.
Regards,
Joey
--
Let's call it an accidental feature. --Larry Wall
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: