Re: Bug#531581: Critical problems on hppa and ia64 buildds
[Resending, seems to be delivery problems, sorry if finally gets duplicated]
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 09:34:40PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fine, though taking the trouble to talk to the porters might still be
> >>> worthwile.
> >>
> >> Yes, but definitely not after I've spend hours of my little Debian
> >> arguing about non-bugs with people who don't read what I say and instead
> >> insist on blaming our packages without explaining why.
> >
> > You were the one reassigning in the first place AFAIR...
>
> Because I didn't see a reason why it should be a bug in our
> packages. And I still don't, since although you and others send loads of
> mails what we should do, no one ever discusses the technical aspects of
> the problem.
Frank, your package honours current Debian policy about that, but Debian
Policy is buggy about that.
See #504880, message #106 from Ian Jackson. You cannot rely on dependencies
being installed at postrm,
Imagine package a depends on package b
# dpkg --unpack a
# dpkg --purge a
can be done without "b" present. And you do not need any --force option.
So policy needs fix about this, and packages should start caring about this.
We already had to deal with this problem in #518975 and made that calls
conditional.
Autobuilders should also be more robust, probably caring more about how the
unpacked packages are sorted, but there may still be corner cases where this
appears.
--
Agustin
Reply to: