Re: If *-module depends on *-utils, should *-source recommend it?
Scripsit "Bernhard R. Link" <email@example.com>
> The elegance is that dpkg is robust in that it can always install
> everything and can get cleanly from one state to another. However broken
> the packages are you never end in a sitation you cannot fix again.
How would this property be lost if dpkg's default was check for
consistency of the end result before it starts unpacking things?
> Without some full formalisation or anything else to make sure it
> cannot get out of this state, or can get back to that state easily,
> it is only a hack.
Nobody claims what such checking will necessarily solve all of the
world's problems. But it will make life easier for people who only use
dpkg occasionally to install locally-built .debs.
> It would also break serialisation, as one would need to give a list of
> packages to install to dpkg all at once or in the correct serialisation,
> and no longer (with exception of configure cycles) beeing able to give
> them in whatever sequence as one is pleased to do.
Nobody is suggesting that there should not be an option to override
the default check for users (or front ends) who know what they are
Henning Makholm "That's okay. I'm hoping to convince the
millions of open-minded people like Hrunkner Unnerby."