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

Re: Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= for dpkg-maintscript-helper okay?

[Dropping the bug cc: again, I don't think that has anything to do with this

On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:26:27PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > So in this case the pre-dependency
> > should *not* be set, as it only serves to complicate the upgrade path.

> I think this example might deserve a closer look.  Documentating the
> required dpkg version seems useful for backporters and others who
> would use the package in unusual situations.

Taken in sum, there is a cost to that documentation.  It makes the Packages
files bigger, so adds to their download time; and it increases the amount of
metadata that high-level package managers (apt et al.) have to store in
memory and process, even if it becomes a no-op for the actual upgrade.

> What apt, aptitude do:

>   I don't know.  Do they allow an already satisfied Pre-Depends to
>   complicate the upgrade path?  IIRC dpkg, as an essential package,
>   always gets upgraded first anyway, but I am not so familiar with this
>   code.

It should not complicate the upgrade path; it may will (slightly) complicate
the calculation of that upgrade path.

>   Bug#593177 brings the possibility of change.  In the extreme case the
>   meaning of Pre-Depends could change to "the depended-on package and
>   its dependencies must be configured at the currently unpacked
>   version", which would make upgrade impossible in the following case.

>   Luckily, bug#593177 can probably be addressed with less dramatic
>   changes.

Yes, frankly I don't know why you're even presenting that as an option; I
don't believe anyone involved in that bug report is arguing for such a

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: