On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 11:49:29AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> If dpkg depends on libz and libz becomes unusable (deleted broken whater)
> then it could be a major hasle to fixed.
Likewise if libc6 becomes deleted or broken or whatever. Or if dpkg
does. Or if something in /var/lib/dpkg gets deleted. Or if /etc/passwd
goes byebye. libz isn't particularly more likely than any of these
to break.
> If apt is installed (and it is
> statically linked against libz) then it could used to fix libz by doing
> "apt-get install libz", but dpkg is "Essential: yes", apt isnt so dpkg
> should be more solid.
If Priority: required packages are broken (ie, things marked Essential:
yes, or things which they depend on), then you can't use the package
tools to fix them when they break. We've already got a whole bunch of
packages in priority required (perl-base, awk, sed, etc) that could end
up broken just as easily as libz, so this is pretty much a null argument.
> If apt wasnt around and dpkg was broken
If dpkg is broken, apt is too.
> the user would have to extract the
> libz by hand, using ar and gzip and tar, which a lot of users wouldnt know
> how to do.
And, like I said, this is, by definition, the case for all required and
essential packages. That people don't have to know how to use ar, gzip
and tar is a testament to how little most of these packages break. There's
no evidence that libz breaks more frequently than anything else.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Debian: giving you the power to shoot yourself in each
toe individually.'' -- with kudos to Greg Lehey
Attachment:
pgpSbEVOo74Ft.pgp
Description: PGP signature