Re: DEP 17: Improve support for directory aliasing in dpkg
On Mon, 8 May 2023 at 03:57, Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 5/7/23 18:14, Ansgar wrote:
>
> > Is there any specific reason why specifically diversions are a problem
> > where "it might work" is not sufficient? That is, why should we divert
> > from the usual standard for dealing with packages outside the Debian
> > ecosystem here?
>
> Locally created diversions are a supported feature, and the only way for
> admins to replace single files in a way that is safe for installing updates.
>
> Even within Debian, it is not sufficient to just coordinate uploads of
> packages that divert each others' files, because the new diversion needs
> to be in place before a newly-canonicalized package is unpacked, a
> Breaks relationship does not enforce that ordering, and while a
> Conflicts without a Replaces does, this adds a lot of constraints to the
> solver.
Sure, they are supported in the sense that they can be enabled, and
then you get to keep the pieces. We ship thousands of maintainer
scripts, and I have never seen one that takes into account completely
arbitrary and random possible local diversion, apart from dash for
/bin/sh (and we are about to nuke most of it!), when
moving/adjusting/fixing and whatnot. Do you have any such
counter-example in mind?
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Reply to: