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

Re: Pseudo-essential packages and Pre-Depends

Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 11:57:28PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

>>> I just realized that xz-utils and liblzma2 technically aren’t ready to
>>> be pseudo-essential: they use Depends: instead of Pre-Depends: for
>>> their dependencies.
>> This doesn't follow.  Only the essential packages themselves must be usable
>> when not configured, which is why those packages use pre-dependencies, not
>> dependencies.  The packages which are *themselves* pre-dependencies don't
>> need to have their dependencies promoted to pre-dependencies.
> When dpkg is upgraded, the pre-dependency of dpkg on xz-utils would ensure
> that xz-utils is configured before the updated dpkg is unpacked.  Such an
> upgrade is safe without any changes to xz-utils.
> If xz-utils is upgraded after that, however, IIUC the upgraded
> xz-utils might be unpacked before its dependencies.

In case anyone was in suspense, what I was missing is that the
problematic upgrade scenario doesn’t occur in a lenny->sid,
squeeze->sid, or sid->sid upgrade.

So the impact of my worries for dpkg is virtually nil; sorry to
trouble you (and thanks to Steve for the clue).  I would still be
interested in feedback on this subject [1], but AIUI for xz-utils it
is academic now.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2010/03/msg00034.html>

Reply to: