On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 18:51 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote: > 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 > dpkg does not abort the installation, the installation concludes with the package in an unpacked state. If it had aborted the installation it would have unwound various steps. > 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? > dpkg -i banana_2.0.all.deb icecream_1.0.all.deb (or 1,000-package equivalents given from APT or dselect which may include quite convoluted conflict and replacement scenarios.) Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part