Re: ~133 upcoming RC bugs?
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:44:24PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > However, earlier versions, such as the one in slink, will still fail! That's
> > > the reason why any packages using two or more packages in C:+R: fields must
> > > declare either a Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.6.8) or Conflicts: dpkg (<< 1.6.8).
> >
> > No, they should have this in preinst:
> >
> > dpkg --assert-multi-conrep
> >
> > This will make sure that they have a dpkg capable of handling this. We
> > have always used this convention since declaring a dep on an essential
> > package isn't desirable.
OK, thanks. But this makes it even more complicated to fix, meaning it will
take longer to fix, if we were to go and fix it properly :(
> For the record: libc6 is affected by this, and it may not be fixed,
> because it would create a pre-dependency loop between dpkg and libc6
Yes :( nobody wants to see the debianutils problem again. :)
> (unless we deliberately compile potato's dpkg using slink libraries).
We might just end up doing that, along with apt which is neccessary anyway,
because, if what I heard is correct, the old version will choke on
dist-upgrade from slink to potato :( Additionally, there's the perl-related
problem, "can't temporarily remove an essential package" - has that been
fixed?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: