Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends
* Guillem Jover (email@example.com) [080723 05:08]:
> Summary of the thread starting at:
> The only valid concerns rised in that thread were from Anthony, and I
> think I gave reasons to dismiss them (found below).
> The rest were concerning policy decisions on when to use lzma
> compression, which are not relevant to this particular decision.
> So, I'd like to ask the Release Team, if it would be fine with you to
> add such Pre-Depends for the next dpkg upload targetting lenny.
I currently don't see the strict reasoning why dpkg should pre-depend on
> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 06:18:36 +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 14:01:16 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:05:06AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > > As per policy 3.5 I'm bringing this up here. I'd like to add lzma to
> > > > dpkg's Pre-Depends, so that we can use lzma compressed packages after
> > > > lenny w/o having to add an lzma Pre-Depends on each .deb package
> > > > compressed that way.
> > >
> > > Hrm. Alternatively, the packages _do_ pre-depend on lzma though; and
> > > you're aiming to avoid that by making lzma Essential:yes -- in the same
> > > way packages that pre-depend on perl or bash don't need an explicit
> > > dependency.
> > Well not really Essential, it's going to be pulled like that yes, but
> > other derivatives, might want to disable it. And I agree with Chris that
> > it makes sense for dpkg to Pre-Depend on lzma as it's the one calling
> > it, and that's an internal implementation detail, in case there's a
> > liblzma in the future and we'd switch to using it, packages should not
> > require to be changed.
What advantage would we (as in Debian) have if dpkg pre-depends on lzma,
instead of the packages pre-depending on lzma?
If there isn't an real and strong advantage, I'd rather think it's
better to not do it. And, BTW, if dpkg pre-depends on lzma, lzma is