Re: libc4 upgrade -- Ouch!
> Well, the error was really a bug in the old postrm script.
Right. BTW, this is one of the reasons I tried to simplify shared
library handling -- it makes it much less error prone.
> If the old
> postrm script fails dpkg tries the new one instaled, so that it is
> possible to recover from packages with broken maintainer scripts.
I understand that.
> When I wrote that code I decided that it probably wasn't safe to go
> ahead with the installation (and effectively ignore the old postrm's
> failure) if the new version of the package didn't have a postrm at
> all.
>
> Do you disagree with this ?
I don't agree nor disagree at this point. I was just pointing out
that either interpretation is valid for this special case since I
don't believe it's covered in the guidelines.
BTW, don't forget about the two suggestions I made a couple of months
ago regarding script handling. I think they would greatly simplify
things. I'll remind you about them after 1.1 is released.
David
--
David Engel Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com 1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
Reply to: