Re: Bug#4895: gcc installs before binutils and fails
Brian White:
> My point was that if "gcc" required something in "binutils" to be fully
> configured during gcc's installation (I can see no reason why this should
> be the case), then "pre-depends" would be the proper solution.
Please RTFM.
Ian.
>From the programmers' manual, 8.2:
Pre-Depends
...
dselect checks for predependencies when it is doing an
installation run, and will attempt to find the packages which
are required to be installed first and do so in the right
order.
However, this process is slow (because it requires repeated
invocations of dpkg) and troublesome (because it requires
guessing where to find the appropriate files).
For these reasons, and because this field imposes restrictions
on the order in which packages may be unpacked (which can be
difficult for installations from multipart media, for example),
Pre-Depends should be used sparingly, preferably only by
packages whose premature upgrade or installation would hamper
the ability of the system to continue with any upgrade that
might be in progress.
>From the policy manual:
3.1.4 Pre-Depends and the Essential flag
Do not use Pre-Depends or Essential: yes unless your package is
absolutely vital to the functioning of the system and the installation
of other packages. Do not do either of these things without
consultation with the distribution maintainers or on debian-devel.
Usually, neither of these fields should not be used unless removing a
package really will completely hose the system, making it impossible
to recover by (re)installing packages with dpkg.
Essential should not be used for a shared library package - the
dependencies will prevent its premature removal, and we need to be
able to remove it when it has been superseded.
It is not necessary for other packages to declare any dependencies
they have on other packages which are marked Essential.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: