Re: APT broken ?

[Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com>]

Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> wrote:
> A strict interpretation of the "definitions" as understood by dpkg
> leads to this statement, but the fact is that gcc's dependence on cpp
> has been satisfied the instant that cpp is unpacked and the necessary
> binary is in the file system. This fact is used in other cases, why
> ingore it here?

This isn't necessarily true.  For example, if some shared libraries
needed by cpp are not present, then cpp won't run.

Also, the only thing that happens in cpp's postinst is install-info.
Why go complicate a simple mechanism to avoid this?

Also, presuming that there was some deep deep need to subvert the
package system, what's wrong with either:

(1) Compiling and installing your own copy of the dependent software, or
(2) downloading and forcibly installing the reevent package using dpkg, or
(3) editting the package's postinst, installing it and putting it on hold, or
(4) using equivs to tell the the package system what you think your current
setup really means.

?

My best guess is that you want equivs functionality available from 
the APT user interface?  Are you sure this is wise?

-- 
Raul


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org