[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dpkg semi-hijack - an announcement (also, triggers)

[Not CCing -dpkg anymore, not relevant there]

Mike Bird <mgb@yosemite.net> writes:
> Triggers are "needed" - a necessary condition, or at least a highly
> desirable condition - for efficient installation of packages in order
> to avoid unnecessary repetitive global reorderings of the initscript
> dependency DAG as each package is installed.

No. They would be nice, nothing more.

> "The reason why we haven't switched yet" does not exist, as there
> are several reasons not one, but if a single reason did exist it
> would have been a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.
> In simple terms: "dpkg triggers" is a highly desirable precondition for
> dependency-based initscripts, but so are several other preconditions,
> not least of which is a substantial test period.  The issues are
> well addressed in Frans' posting, the URL of which I have already
> posted once in this thread and will now post again[0].

You seem to believe that Frans decides if and when we are going to
switch to a dep-based init system. That is not the case. The release
team will decide together with the involved package maintainers if this
is a feature that can reasonably be enabled for lenny [1]. At this
point, the main problem is that there is not enough experience with the
system, it misses broad testing and that there are still heaps of
packages around which ship init scripts without dependency information.

Oh, and fuck you too for the "in simple terms". At this point I would
love to hear who you are and why you parade around -devel, giving the
impression to be better informed about the preconditions for transitions
than the people actually in charge.


[1]  Either as default for all system or only for fresh installs.
BOFH #429:
Temporal anomaly

Attachment: pgpIeJQovdvRm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: