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

Bug#504880: Disambiguate "installed" for packages

> +	  If there is a circular dependency among packages being installed
> +	  or removed, installation or removal order honoring the
> +	  dependency order is impossible, requiring the dependency loop be
> +	  broken at some point and the dependency requirements violated
> +	  for at least one package.  Packages involved in circular
> +	  dependencies may not be able to rely on their dependencies being
> +	  configured when being configured or removed depending on which
> +	  side of the break of the circular dependency loop they happen to
> +	  be on.  If one of the packages in the loop has no

A previous proposal had two times unpacked instead of configured,
and I'm not really sure why you changed it.

They can't rely on it being configured, so the text is not wrong.

But the previous text has atleast two other things that it indirectly
states that you can't rely on in case of circular dependecies:
- If you're being configured wether you're dependend-on package
  is unpacked.  You now only say it's not configured.
- When you're being unpacked that the dependend-on package is
  unpackaged which might be important to maintainer scripts.  During
  the unpack state all maintainer scripts can potentially be called,
  taking the error cases into account.  All but postinst can be called
  if there is no error.


Reply to: