[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on ${shlibs:Depends}



On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > "We might some day later change the way apt works for upgrades" is not an
> > > argument for adding a pre-dependency now.
> 
> > But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
> > "dpkg -i ...; apt-get install -f" idiom (where ... is APT) -- certainly
> > is an argument. 
> 
> Yeah.  I don't strongly disagree with this argument, but I also don't find
> it particularly persuasive.  apt already treats apt as special, I don't
> think it's very consistent to ask dpkg and other front ends to also treat
> apt specially (by way of Pre-Depends).
> 
> > The counter argument seems to be 
> >         - we do not protect the user from removing APT with dpkg
> >                 => counter argument: dpkg -i is common, dpkg -R is not
> >                 (see Raphaël's email)
> >         - there are other package managers
> >                 => counter argument: No other package manager has as few
> >                 dependencies as APT and as high priority.
> 
> 	- it doesn't fit with the usual justifications of Pre-Depends
> 	  (needed in preinst, or package is essential and must be usable
> 	  when unpacked), and it will be pointed to as precedent for other
> 	  non-traditional uses of Pre-Depends, when it's already hard to
> 	  explain to people when Pre-Depends should be used and why?
> 
> (Yes, I know that I've just been responsible for a much worse instance of
> this in the case of multiarch-support; I'm not thrilled about that either,
> but don't see any other way to ensure reliable upgrades to wheezy.)
> 
> > So practically spoken, we are at something like +0.5 for the change
> > based on the arguments. Based on votes, we're currently at +1.
> 
> > -1 jackyf@debian.org
> > +1 peter@p12n.org
> > +1 hertzog@debian.org
> > -2 kalnischkies+debian@gmail.com
> > +2 jak@debian.org
> >  0 mvo@debian.org
> > ------------------
> > +1 total (maximum 9)
> 
> Well, I guess you could count me as a weak -1 here.
If it's weak, use a float: -0.5.

-1.0 jackyf@debian.org
+1.0 peter@p12n.org
+1.0 hertzog@debian.org
-2.0 kalnischkies+debian@gmail.com
+2.0 jak@debian.org
 0.0 mvo@debian.org
-0.5 vorlon@debian.org
------------------
+0.5 total (maximum 10)

-- 
Julian Andres Klode  - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member

See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/.



Reply to: