Re: show all Suggests packages not installed
On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:22:53 -0700, Keegan Quinn <kquinn@respond2.com> said:
> On Wednesday 14 May 2003 11:05 am, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003 09:36:57 -0700, Keegan Quinn
>> <kquinn@respond2.com> said:
>> >> The only solution I think is if dpkg were to take over
>> >> responsibility for deleting configuration files, so that the
>> >> postrm script doesn't have to worry.
>> >
>> > I think that in this situation, package a should check if a-beta
>> > is installed during its postrm purge, and avoid taking over...
>> > Is there some reason you think this doesn't work?
>>
>> What if I am not aware of a-beta? What if a-beta does not exist
>> when package a was created? What if there are several a-betas, and
>> I miss a few?
> One would hope to see more coordination between Debian maintainers
> of such similar packages than that. (In fact, in this example, I
> would expect a and a-beta to have the same maintainer, although it
> would by no means be necessary.)
What if the maintainer of a is slow in responding? and a-beta,
delta, gamma et al have been created by others in his absence?
> However, you are right, there will always be corner cases, and there
> are potential synchronicity issues with this approach, involving
> partial upgrades; I still think it is better than not trying at all.
> Solving this properly remains a worthy goal.
Yes. a is buggy, and I hold it -- I discover a-beta. I never ever
upgrade a -- and the version of a installed does not know a-beta
exists. Some other admin comes in and purges a.
We need a solution with fewer failure modes.
manoj
--
consultant, n.: Someone who knowns 101 ways to make love, but can't
get a date.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: