Bug#403649: debian-policy: Should clarify package availability in "postrm remove"
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 06:41:41PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.1
> Severity: normal
> Tags: patch
> Current Policy says:
> ,---- 7.2 Binary Dependencies
> | The Depends field should also be used if the postinst, prerm or
> | postrm scripts require the package to be present in order to
> | run. Note, however, that the postrm cannot rely on any
> | non-essential packages to be present during the purge phase.
> `----
> I suggest to add to the second sentence: ", and that only the postinst
> script can rely on the package to be configured."
> I'm not even sure whether the postinst can rely on "configuredness" for
> all types of incovation, or only for "configure"/"reconfigure".
> For an example why this difference is important, see #403641
I don't think this is the right solution. Putting the burden on package
prerms to deal with brokenness in their dependencies' postinsts is rather
onerous; I think we need to acknowledge here that it's possible for packages
to end up in a state that can't be resolved automatically, but only as a
consequence of bugs/failures in their dependencies.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: