Re: possible problem with new perl, libc6 on Sep 23rd
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 03:00:35AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Darren/Torin/Who Ever... wrote:
> > I inherited this when I inherited the package in November of 1995. It
> > was setup this way so that after the removal of the previous Perl
> > package and before the installation of a new Perl package, there was
> > still a Perl available. Since we always needed a Perl, we wanted to
> > avoid that small window.
> >
> > I notice that bash doesn't do any shenanigans like this. Is this a
> > relic of bygone days and I don't need to do this funky stuff anymore?
> > That would make things much easier for me.
>
> It's my understanding that dpkg is (and always has been) designed so this
> kind of thing isn't necessary. As I understand it, when a package is
> upgraded, for each file, dpkg does this:
>
> - extracts new file as .dpkg-new
> - if it can, atomically overwrites the old file with the .dpkg-new file
> - if not (replacing directory with file, etc), renames the old file to
> .dpkg-old, and renames .dpkg-new to the final filename
> - removes .dpkg-old file
>
> Nowhere in there do I see any time at all when some version of the file is
> not available.
Yeah, obviously /lib/libc.so.6 is a good example of this. If we were left
with any period without it, there would obviously be problems.
Ben
Reply to: