On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 03:05:08PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:46:12PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:06:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Oooh, Method B is one I haven't seen proposed before in the context of dummy > > > packages. That looks far more elegant to me than the alternatives. Have > > > you tested that dpkg really does do the right thing here, given that the > > > replacing package gets installed first (since it's a dependency)? > > I did that once in 2003 for dx but hit a different bug then: dpkg would > > try to configure oldpkg when it had disappeared already. It worked fine > > with a patch to dpkg that went into the sarge version, but I haven't > > tested it since then. I'll give it another try to be sure. > Looking at the actual control file I used back then, an additional > Conflicts: oldpkg (<< First-Dummy-Version) is needed to ensure correct > ordering. newpkg needs to be unpacked after the dummy version of > oldpkg. Which makes the solution a lot less elegant, but apt still is > able to cope. Not sure about britney, though. I don't expect britney to have any problems at all with that. > Anyway, as noted in my previous mail to this thread, when testing this > method on unstable and sarge, I hit a bug in apt that rules it out for > etch. If you still like this method, we can get the necessary fixes in > and promote it for etch+1, though. IMHO it definitely seems worth doing. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature