Re: If *-module depends on *-utils, should *-source recommend it?

[Cameron Hutchison <camh+dl@xdna.net>]

Once upon a time Scott James Remnant said...
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> 
> > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0
> > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> > installation of foo-modules_2.0
> > 
> This is incorrect.
> 
> dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.

Ok. If we change the above sequence to:

dpkg unpacks the data contents (data.tar.gz) of foo-modules_2.0 into
  their final location in the filesystem (possibly overwriting the
  contents of the package being replaced)

dpkg then checks dependencies of foo-modules_2.0

dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
  installation of foo-modules_2.0


Is this correct? I gather it is from what you have elaborated further on
in the thread.

Would it not make sense to change the order of the first two items in
the list?

I think the reversed order is correct and the current order is not - but
that's based only on my limited understanding. Is there a reason that
the data.tar.gz needs to be unpacked before the dependencies are checked
to see if the package can be installed?