Re: Should ucf be of priority required?
On Sat, Dec 05 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Not wanting to start another flame war, but ...
>
> On Sa, 05 Dez 2009, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
>> The crux is the last point. For a good reason postrm must not require
>> tools it depends on to be around when removing the package itself.
>
> making dpkg policy compliant would help, too, then we removed package
> can expect dependcies to be present.
Umm, what parts of policy would that be?
,----[ 7.2. Binary Dependencies - `Depends' ... ]
| `Depends'
| This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
| configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends'
| field have been correctly configured.
|
| The `Depends' field should be used if the depended-on package is
| required for the depending package to provide a significant
| amount of functionality.
|
| The `Depends' field should also be used if the `postinst',
| `prerm' or `postrm' scripts require the package to be present in
| order to run. Note, however, that the `postrm' cannot rely on
| any non-essential packages to be present during the `purge'
| phase.
`----
So, policy does not require dependencies to be around at least
during purge.
manoj
--
My only love sprung from my only hate! Too early seen unknown, and
known too late! -- William Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet"
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: