Hello, On Tue 23 Jul 2024 at 08:18pm -05, Rob Browning wrote: > Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> writes: > >> We noticed that the triggers spec[0] says "It is not defined in what >> order triggers will run." We think this may invalidate your current >> approach. Or did you already see this and account for it? > > I'll have to refresh, but from what I recall offhand, that might be a > problem. (And perhaps I missed/forgot that from the spec.) > > And for what it's worth, when I left things last, I'd mostly been > reasoning from Manoj's last graph here (and the subset covered in > policy): https://people.debian.org/~srivasta/MaintainerScripts.html > > In any case, if I remember correctly, I was under the impression that > they may respect dependency ordering at least to the extent that the > postinst configure does, and hence allow us to avoid having to handle > that ourselves (e.g. as we do now, not entirely satisfactorily, via > tsort). I believe I also did some testing in a VM, and the ordering was > respected for some test packages I created, but of course that's not a > promise. Thanks. When David and I talked about it, we thought that we shouldn't rely on ordering that's not guaranteed by the triggers spec -- though possibly the spec has fallen out-of-date with the implementation. Anyway, it seems like some more thought is required for the emacsen-common rewrite, so we are going to go ahead and move dh-elpa experimental->unstable, and rebuild everything, to fix the bug that's been affecting users upgrading between stable releases. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature