Re: dpkg upgrade/downgrade dependency problem
On Thu, Apr 16, 1998 at 12:12:39AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, Juan Cespedes wrote:
>
> > > The only things that inhibit unpacking are items that are strictly
> > > forbidden - violating a conflicts and unmet forwards predepends.
> >
> > So you say I should treat "depends:" and "pre-depends:" in a
> > different way. Well, that is an option. Many of the bug reports
> > about this are about ensuring we shouldn't leave "bash" unuseable by
> > installing an old version of libreadlineg2. (bash is essential, and so
> > it predepends on libreadlineg2 (>= some version)).
>
> Read that again carefully. This section describes how things work NOW -
> not how you should make them work. Notice I specificly said 'forwards
> predepends' - that excludes reverse predepends - it is perfectly
> fine to unpack a new package and wreck a predepend on it (reverse
> predepend).
OK, you are beginning to convince me. I just omitted the
"forwards" word when reading your sentence, so I didn't understand it
properly. Sorry.
> Please tell me exactly how and which of the three points above are not
> true now - it's very important. Check your facts, because I have verified
> each of the above.
I understanded your "forwards predepends" as just
"predepends". All your points are true.
Anyway, I still think that it shouldn't be that easy for root
to make the system unuseable (the best way to do it is to install an
ldso from bo or rex in a hamm system).
Maybe I should activate the "-G" option by default, so
someone has to use "dpkg --force-downgrade" to install a lower version
of a package that the one currently installed.
But maybe I'm just being paranoid and all I should do is warn
the user in the configure phase as you told me.
Comments?
--
Juan Cespedes
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: