Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Changes in emacsen policies
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:13:53AM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Hi,
> there seems to be a change in the emacsen policy in the pipeline. We
> (package maintainer address) were cc'd in some emails, but I deleted
> them as moderator. This was an accident, but there were like 100 CC
> addresses, so I considered it spam without even looking at the content.
>
> I still have the *content* of these emails, which I will send as replies
> to this email.
Mail 3
From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
To: Agustin Martin <agustin6martin@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:51:27 -0600
Subject: Re: Proposed new requirements for emacsen add-on packages
Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org> writes:
> However, to demonstrate why I'm beginning to think the current approach
> may be unworkable, consider the case where no emacsen-related packages
> are installed and someone runs this:
>
> apt-get install emacs24 add-on-depending-on-add-on-1 add-on-1
>
> What should happen if the postinsts fire in the order listed? When
> add-on-depending-on-add-on-1's postinst fires, add-on-1 isn't
> "installed", and so add-on-depending-on-add-on-1 should be skipped
> (though that may actually be broken right now), and then when add-on-1's
> postinst fires, it's not (currently) going to do anything about the
> other add-on because add-on-depending-on-add-on-1 isn't a dependency for
> add-on-1.
Oh, and of course, one way you might try to fix this is arrange to have
every add-on "install" every add-on that depends on it (and is ready).
So then every add-on would be trying to install both its upstream and
downstream dependencies. But even if we could do that sanely, we'd end
up running even more redundant installs.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org
GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A
GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
Reply to: