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

Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends


On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 14:01:16 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:06AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > As per policy 3.5 I'm bringing this up here. I'd like to add lzma to
> > dpkg's Pre-Depends, so that we can use lzma compressed packages after
> > lenny w/o having to add an lzma Pre-Depends on each .deb package
> > compressed that way.
> Hrm. Alternatively, the packages _do_ pre-depend on lzma though; and
> you're aiming to avoid that by making lzma Essential:yes -- in the same
> way packages that pre-depend on perl or bash don't need an explicit
> dependency.

Well not really Essential, it's going to be pulled like that yes, but
other derivatives, might want to disable it. And I agree with Chris that
it makes sense for dpkg to Pre-Depend on lzma as it's the one calling
it, and that's an internal implementation detail, in case there's a
liblzma in the future and we'd switch to using it, packages should not
require to be changed.

> libz and libbz2 are both included statically;

Switching to dynamic linking is something I've been pondering for some
time, but that's independent of this discussion, and something not to
be changed at this point of the release anyway.

> would it make more sense to do the same thing with the lzma (ie,
> copy the binary into /usr/lib/dpkg), instead of making lzma
> essential?

The lzma package is tiny, it could be halved as I pointed out in the
bug report (should probably just file bug reports on lzma for that).
That would imply an installed size of about 150 KiB, 100 of those
are just the lzma binary. In that case I don't really see the gain
in having mostly the package there but w/o it being handled by the
packaging system.


Reply to: