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

Re: Recent version of dpkg-maintscript-helper needed for BPO

Orthogonal to the discussion, but:

>> What is the argumentation against a backport of dpkg?
> Fear of breaking something, be it upgrades or something else. But I don't
> generally buy this as we tend to encourage people to upgrade apt/dpkg
> before doing upgrades anyway.

That's not quite what has been recommended for either lenny→squeeze or 
squeeze→wheezy: «apt-get update; apt-get upgrade; apt-get dist-upgrade» have 
been the recommended (and tested) procedures for these upgrades; yes the 
'upgrade' step might include apt and dpkg but this is in contrast to 
etch→lenny, which was approximately «aptitude update; aptitude install 
aptitude; aptitude safe-upgrade; aptitude full-upgrade» (that is to upgrade 
the tools first and then upgrade the release).

If the dpkg maintainers have strong feelings that dpkg should be upgraded 
first then please file a bug against the release notes so that this can be 
properly documented. Of course, we don't want to rely on this behaviour as 
people don't read the release notes and many still believe that all they 
need to do is a dist-upgrade in any case without any other care for udev, 
kernel, tools, two-step upgrades, …


Stuart Prescott    http://www.nanonanonano.net/   stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer   http://www.debian.org/         stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint    BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8

Reply to: