[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: slink -> potato

On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Herbert Xu wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 07:06:10PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 08:15:54AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > I think the worst case would be a telnetd linked with a broken
> > > shlib (or in the case of telnetd, perhaps a missing or broken
> > > /usr/lib/telnetd/login) that gives a security hole. If you wish to
> > > minimise downtime, the proper way to do it IMHO is to have certain
> > > packages flagged as daemons, and they should be upgraded (by whatever
> > > program that is in charge) one by one.
> > 
> > Under what circumstances would this be in effect during an
> > upgrade but not otherwise?
> The fact that dpkg does not deconfigure a package which depends on another
> deconfigured package is a bug in dpkg.  This should not be used as an excuse
> to not deal with things correctly in maintainer scripts.

It isn't a bug, it is a feature. 

As for the discussion, APT actually has such a feature cleverly
undocumented and unmentioned - if you flag a package as Impotant: then
its downtime is minizimized by the ordering code.

For the record, many daemon packages (like apache) use the installation
script arguments to tell what is going on and not needless stop the server
during an upgrade - this is the best solution to the problem.


Reply to: