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

Re: how to compare versions



On Friday 05 February 2010 04:43:05 Hideki Yamane wrote:
> > This is true in general, although it's perhaps worth noting that a rare
> > pre- depends on a priority required package like debconf by a priority
> > optional or extra package isn't likely to cause any trouble.
> 
>  Yes, it is true in general but I want to know the example for that :)
>  For example, if I have foobar package and it says "Pre-Depends:
>  debconf", what would happen?

Short answer: nothing, it would work fine in practice.

Long answer:

Debconf would be required to be fully unpacked and configured before foobar 
could even be unpacked. But, since debconf is priority "required", and is 
already depended on by so many other packages that it's infeasible that it 
won't already be completely installed, the pre-depends would be a no-op. In 
the rare case that debconf wasn't already installed, it would simply be 
unpacked and configured first, which might slow down the resolver (and hence 
installation) but otherwise would be no problem.

However, it is possible that you can dream up a bizarre corner case where 
you are pre-depending on a specific version, your doing a big dist-upgrade, 
the foobar package has a pre-depends and so do a bunch of other packages 
that are intertwined in foobar's dependency graph, and the whole thing 
explodes in a big unresolvable mess.

The last paragraph is incredibly unlikely for just foobar pre-depending on 
debconf that's you'd have to come up with some silly scenerio to show it 
breaking, but if pre-depends were used all over the place on lots of 
packages, that kind of scenerio could happen really quickly, which is why 
they are generally to be avoided.

I think the general idea is:

  1) Don't use pre-depends.
  2) No, really, don't use pre-depends.
  2) Don't use pre-depends unless it's the best technical solution.

=)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: