On Fri, 07 Nov 2008, Colin Watson wrote: > I've attached a patch, and am seeking seconds for this proposal. Please > double-check it for correctness, particularly the change in the > definition of Breaks; I have only verified that against an old mail from > Ian proposing the design of this field > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/10/msg00643.html), not > against the current implementation. Seconded. I agree that it's misleading and ought to be fixed. The part concerning Breaks looks right from a quick glance in dpkg's source. On Fri, 07 Nov 2008, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Sometimes it's also using "present" while it probably also means unpacked. I would like to fix those too. > For instance: > some packages may > not be able to rely on their dependencies being present when being > installed or removed Ack. > You also didn't change that installed it seems? Given that intallation is unpacking + configuration, and that configuration is mainly running the postinst, and that the postinst configure can rely on dependencies being unpacked, I think we should also change installed into unpacked here. > There is also: > 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. Ack to change s/present/unpacked/g here too. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature