Re: autoup.sh & considerations on bail-out scripts
David Welton <davidw@gate.cks.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 1998 at 11:04:04AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> wrote:
> > > the script would probably not be necessary if dpkg (or any of the dpkg
> > > methods - ftp, mountable, etc) used manoj's pkg-order to sort packages
> > > into dependancy order. both ftp and mountable could be modified to do
> > > this. the default mounted method probably couldn't easily because it
> > > just does a simple recursive 'dpkg -iGROEB'
> >
> > Is there any where we can wedge in an upgraded libc5 dpkg?
>
> AFAIK, there is no way to guarantee that users will have a new dpkg,
> and what's more the maintainers of it seem to have taken a vacation in
> the Bermuda Triangle, so we will probably have to wait for any
> substantive changes (although non maintainer releases are slowly
> taking place, I guess:-)
We can put a dpkg in the distribution, but there's the issue of
how do you upgrade it again to complete the upgrade. OR, maybe
we need to resign ourselves to living with a libc5 version of
dpkg for hamm (which implies another major debian release
after a very short time).
Any change to dpkg we can cast as a shell (or whatever) wrapper around
the existing functionality of dpkg gets around the lack of documented
design interfaces for its internals.
We know that dpkg as it currently stands can't do the hamm upgrade.
We know that we need to do this hamm upgrade.
One option is to just throw up our hands and say "we goofed, you're
going to have to work around the limitations of our package management
system". Another option is to fix our package management system.
But, something has to give.
Currently, I'm leaning in the direction of a "pkg-order" wrapper for
dpkg.
--
Raul
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: