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