Re: Recent version of dpkg-maintscript-helper needed for BPO
Orthogonal to the discussion, but:
>> What is the argumentation against a backport of dpkg?
>
> Fear of breaking something, be it upgrades or something else. But I don't
> generally buy this as we tend to encourage people to upgrade apt/dpkg
> before doing upgrades anyway.
That's not quite what has been recommended for either lenny→squeeze or
squeeze→wheezy: «apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; apt-get dist-upgrade» have
been the recommended (and tested) procedures for these upgrades; yes the
'upgrade' step might include apt and dpkg but this is in contrast to
etch→lenny, which was approximately «aptitude update; aptitude install
aptitude; aptitude safe-upgrade; aptitude full-upgrade» (that is to upgrade
the tools first and then upgrade the release).
If the dpkg maintainers have strong feelings that dpkg should be upgraded
first then please file a bug against the release notes so that this can be
properly documented. Of course, we don't want to rely on this behaviour as
people don't read the release notes and many still believe that all they
need to do is a dist-upgrade in any case without any other care for udev,
kernel, tools, two-step upgrades, …
cheers
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
Reply to: