Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on ${shlibs:Depends}
On 2011-04-27 13:46, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [1] If we count the situation for resuming broken upgrade, there is a
> > some chance you'll have to call dpkg manually or some hacks
> > to proceed anyway.
>
> Not always. There are states dpkg goes through that 'apt-get install'
> can "recover" from on its own. You don't always have to go to dpkg.
Sure, 'some chance' == 'not always'.
> Also, what if apt wants to call one of its auxilliary binaries during
> the install/upgrade? I imagine it's not implemented that way _now_,
> but a Pre-Depends would make such a thing a lot safer if they want it.
> (Same is true if they want to dlopen a library during the install, but
> that's somewhat less likely.)
That's a valid point. However both of that don't fall under
{shlibs:Depends} and can be pre-depended on explicitly later when needed.
> > I object to this change.
> On what grounds? [...]
I don't see a problem which would be fixed by that change. Successful
upgrades are successful, broken upgrades may require and will may require
low-level fixing in some cases.
> Pro:
> - Would make upgrades more robust
I have to agree in theory. Had someone encountered this at least once
since APT has born?
> - Would make apt implementation more flexible
About auxiliary binaries? Answered above.
> [...] apt is quite low on the dependency chain, depending only
> on some quite low-level libraries, so the impact should be minimal.
Yes, that's true.
For me, it's very-minimal-value positive versus minimal-value negative.
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Reply to: