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

Bug#504880: Disambiguate "installed" for packages

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


> 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.

Raphaël Hertzog

Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: