Re: New dpkg upload - please test!
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 02:17:18PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > dpkg (220.127.116.11) unstable; urgency=low
> > * non-maintainer release.
> > * Move dselect into its own package
> Oops, I forgot to remove this from the changelog. I reverted this change
> since there is no good upgrade strategy for moving dselect to another
> The problem is that when you upgrade the dpkg package it will remove
> dselect. dselect will only return when the new dselect package is installed.
> This means there is a timeframe in which you might be doing an install
> using dselect during which dselect removes itself. This can produce quite
> nasty problems; imagine what would happen if the install fails before the
> dselect package gets installed...
> The only way I can see to prevent this is to rename the dpkg package, and
> make dpkg a dummy-package that Pre-Depends on dselect and the new dpkg package.
> That will enforce that both dpkg and dselect will be installed when you
> upgrade your system.
What about a two step installation ?
First you would create a empty deselect package, and make dpkg depend
upon it, then later on, you move dselect to the new dselect package,
making the appropriate depend/conflict magic so that it works. This way
you don't have to rename the dpkg package, which would be nice.
I think you can go away with this, if you have the dselect less dpkg
package conflict with the empty dselect package. The only problem would
be that there would be a conflict because both dpkg and dselect would
contain the dselect stuff. Does some flag or other handle this cases ?
Maybe the replace field ?