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

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 12:32:08AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:

> > The downside is, of course, that dpkg isn't very good at ordering
> > things, but again, that's a flaw in dpkg, and I think we'd be better
> > off trying to address that, not just for essential packages, but for
> > the benefit of the whole system.

> Sigh. Why does everyone think this is a flaw in dpkg? Is 'rm -rf /' a flaw
> in rm?

Not a valid analogy.  The issue here is that essential packages are,
in essence, *PRE*-dependencies of the entire system, not just
dependencies.  And dpkg has *never* handled pre-dependencies very
gracefully.  (I still recall, on my first install of debian, having to
run the install process several times, because dpkg was confused by
all the pre-dependencies in the base system.)

This is more like if rm choked on symlinks.

> dpkg is the very lowest interface to the packaging system, it
> performs all the *mandatory* checks necessary to do any operation.

Yes, well, perhaps modifying dpkg isn't the only way to address the
problem; I'll grant that.  Modifying *all* the existing tools that use
dpkg is another perfectly viable, and possibly preferable approach.
Except, of course, for the fact that there are a lot of such tools,
and there may well be inhouse tools we're not aware of.

I don't know; seems like everybody but me is enamoured of complex,
baroque solutions that involve jumping through hoops while juggling
chainsaws.  I think that fixing dpkg would be a simple and final
solution to the problem.  Yes, it requires more work up front, but I
think it would save a lot of work and broken systems in the long run.
It's called "doing it right".

I'm a lot more sympathetic to this objection than I am to AT's,
though.  Fixing all the dselect methods would certainly be a Good
Thing.  :-)

Reply to: