Re: APT broken ?
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > > I don't see what is wrong with this, as it falls within original
> > > definitions of the behaviour.
> >
> > How so?
> >
> > Installed - Means that the package is unpacked and configured and is in a
> > good state
> >
> But for many packages, unpacking them is sufficient to satisfy the
> dependency. I believe cpp is one of those. Once it is unpacked gcc will
> work.
Unpacked is not at all the same as installed - they are completely
different states. A package is not considered 'Installed' until it's
scripts run successfully.
> suspect that the cleanest way to deal with it in the status file is to
> declare the package as "installed ok hold" so dpkg/APT doesn't try to
Erm what you are suggesting sounds more like "hold ok unpacked".
Incendently, the Status: line is fairly important to the functioning of
dpkg. I will -NOT- change it in any fashion or change the meanings of any
of the terms. There is simply too much risk.
Hold means do not try to change that packages state. That is all it means,
nothing more, nothing less. If you hold an uninstalled package it will
never automatically install it. If you hold an installed package it wil
never try to remove it or upgrade it. If it is in transition state then it
will be pushed to next closest final state.
The only thing hold means to dpkg is that when doing a recursive directory
scan it will not install that package. (APT's interpitation is an
extrapolation of that behavior)
> Why clutter what you are designing when there is an adequate mechanism
> already available. The desire to know all the details of the install, by
> the package manager, is likely to yield an inflexible system. I'm just
> looking for more "freedom" and flexibility.
Okay, so to do this you want me to change the meaning of Hold to extend to
dependancy relations and butcher the meaning of unpacked or installed to
mean 'maybe installed'?
What about people who want to use hold for it's original purpose? Those
who simply want a package to never be installed or upgraded. The new
definition mucks up their system, they could have an unpacking accident
and then apt will magically consider the package as OK and not issue any
warnings that their system is hosed. Certainly not what why want.
A new flag is a much better alternative and does not require the messy
unpacking but not configuring hack that abusing hold does. It also
preserves the existing meaning of hold which is just as important.
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: