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 <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Luk Claes <firstname.lastname@example.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
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