Re: /usr/share/doc (was Re: weekly policy summary)
On Mon, Aug 02, 1999 at 10:57:12AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 06:08:33PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 31, 1999 at 01:50:39AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > So all new packages will have to depend on this particular version of
> > > > base-files or newer, or there is still no guarantee that the link gets
> > > > removed.
> > > Erm, no, they don't need to declare any such dependency -- the package
> > > works with or without such a symlink.
> > The package works, the removal won't. We will end up with a dangling
> > symlink.
>
> No, the prerm removes the symlink, and the postinst reinstates it
> as necessary. The only problem is redundant symlinks when you're doing
> partial upgrades to woody+1 (or later), which no longer need any symlinks,
> from potato/woody. But they still all point at the correct places.
You're correct. The old prerm script is called before an update. This makes
my analysis wrong indeed. The prerm scripts can go after the transition.
I apologize for giving this wrong information. However, the fact that it
took literally weeks for someone to correct me shows that only few people
cared to think the proposal through completely, if anybody at all.
> > This proposal was suggested to make a smooth transition. If this smooth
> > transition can't be provided without allowing downgrades and upgrades from
> > any version to any other version it is not worth the bytes written with. If
> > the correct solution can not be achieved without keeping a prerm script in
> > every package forever, I consider the cost to be too high.
>
> So do I. But this is simply not the case.
Correct. I would like to see the proposal revived, with the correct script
snippets included, and a correct and complete analysis of what happens
during upgrades (this is almost done already), downgrades(!),
partial upgrades (also almost done), skipping of version numbers (this one
is trivial) etc.
If this is done, I will still not support the proposal (because I still
think the cost is too high), but I will retract my objection. A precondition for
this is that I am convinced by the proposal that all important cases are
well covered.
As there were a lot of supporters of the original proposal, I would be
surprised if nobody steps up to make this work and creates example packages
which use the script for some testing.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: