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

Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:44:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends"):
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:28:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > What advantage would we (as in Debian) have if dpkg pre-depends on lzma,
> > > instead of the packages pre-depending on lzma?

> > If dpkg internalizes the lzma support (by static linking, dynamic linking,
> > or depending on the lzma binary), and packages which use lzma pre-depend on
> > the correct version of dpkg, then the pre-dependency on dpkg is transitional
> > and can go away after a release cycle.

> No, unless the dpkg.deb binary package were to actually _contain_ the
> lzma code, dpkg would have to Pre-Depend on it forever (or it would
> have to be made Essential).  Dynamic linking or expecting to use the
> lzma binary from another package would not suffice.

"The pre-dependency on dpkg", not "the pre-dependency on lzma".

> > What is fundamentally different about lzma that it should be handled
> > differently than gzip and bzip2?

> lzma is much more of a minority interest than gzip.  We do not expect
> ever to transition the entire archive to use gzip.  The approach taken
> with bzip2 was a mistake and should not be repeated.

That's a new argument I haven't heard before.  *Why* was it a mistake to do
this the way it was done with bzip2?

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: