Re: dpkg, ELF, upgrade order, broken systems
Fernando Alegre writes:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 1996, Carl V Streeter wrote:
> > I think that the assertion that all packages could be unpacked in any
> > order is flawed.
> I think it is a desirable goal.
I'd call it noble, and practically speaking, unrealistic. Especially
when dealing with system innards.
> I think this is much more customizable than adding
> a field. It will deal with unforeseen problems much better.
I disagree. This goes a long way toward the general problem of updating
shared libraries and associated binaries.
> There is a better way to deal with this kind of problem:
> installation scripts.
Installation scripts can't deal with the fact that if I, say, unpack a new
major version of libc, and ncurses, and elm, and telnetd, that elm and
telnetd which will assumedly need the new libraries won't work until the
libraries are fully installed.
Carl Streeter | "I'll forgive even GNU emacs as long
firstname.lastname@example.org | as gcc is available" --Linus Torvalds
Just another Perl hacker | "Etiquette-wise, there is no proper time
Ask me about Debian/GNU Linux. | to use the phrase 'It sucks.'" --Dogbert