Re: RFC: allow output from maintainer scripts

[Brian May <bam@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

    Anthony> Which will kludge up postinsts from now to forever, be an
    Anthony> extra source for bugs, and make changing things in future
    Anthony> awkward.

I don't think we should downgrade the capability of future debian
products, either just for the sake of back-words compatibility.


    Anthony> Compare and contrast to the usr/doc boilerplate, eg: when
    Anthony> it goes away, nothing will break, you'll merely have
    Anthony> mixed documentation if you do a partial upgrade. If the
    Anthony> above boiler plate ever goes away, new .debs will not be
    Anthony> installable with an old dpkg.

Like the usr/doc situation, after a while we can get rid of the extra
stuff.

I can't help but think though that this indicates a bigger problem
in our reliance on maintainer scripts - it is not possible to add new
features without:

- hard-coding the entire feature in the maintainer script

AND/OR

- depending on another package which codes the feature.

Not sure on the best solution. Here is one that comes to mind:

Perhaps some general system could be implemented that uses a feature
straight away (if it is already installed) or takes some other action
if the feature is not installed yet (eg ignoring the request or
logging the request for latter in case the feature is installed).
Such a mechanism could also be used as a base for update-*
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>