Re: Autoinstall, upgrade, etc
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Behan Webster wrote:
>
> > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > Don't forget that obsolete packages are not auto-deinstalled. They are
> > only marked as being obsolete. It is up to the user to uninstall them.
> >
> > Why would anything be marked for removal? The only time things are
> > auto-removed is if nothing else depends on them any more (and if they
> > were originally auto-installed).
> >
> > The only time I would suggest making it so you couldn't install a
> > package is if all the "Depends on" (as per the header) packages are not
> > available or being kept back to previous versions. And then I would
> > also include an override.
> >
> > I don't understand when your example would occur.
>
> Well, this is silly but:
> elf-x11r6 used to be provided by xlib.
> xlib no longer provides it
> packages still depend on it
> dpkg allowed you to upgrade to the new xlib even though it would wreck
> dependancies
> in fact dpkg didn't even warn you that you were doing something silly.
>
> So to the view of any sane person a package that depends on elf-x11r6 and
> is installed in the system is broken. Deity should remove packages in a
> state like this they are held with a keep-force.
I'm not comfortable with this. I think that packages should only be
auto-removed if they were auto-installed in the first place.
Whether a package is broken or not, the computer should not be more
intelligent than the human. Auto-installing a package isn't so bad,
because, in general, there's a pretty good chance it will work once the
new version is installed. However, auto-removing a package breaks
whatever it was doing before. If it has been installed, there must have
been a good reason. List errors in the status windows of these packages
and let the user know there is a problem with the broken package, but
ultimately, if a package is in a wierd state, let the user fix it.
> Oh, if deity detects a new version (in any dist?) then I suppose it could
> somehow mark it for install, donno..
This is fine. Replacing broken packages with new packages is fine,
because presumably if all dependancies are met, and there is a new
version, it will probably fix the broken package.
> The automatic 'fixing' of systems is going to be very hard to get just
> right so lots'o'fiddling.
The only "automatic" fixing of systems I would like to see is installing
all the recommended or suggested packages if the user wants to. The
user should just be made aware of any other problems.
> BTW, did you ever get the sources to compile or try to run Scott's .debs?
I'm using Scott's debs. I've dloaded them home, and I'll look at them
when I get home. (The hamm machine is hooked up to the ADSL line).
Thanks,
Behan
--
Behan Webster mailto:behanw@verisim.com
+1-613-224-7547 http://www.verisim.com/
Reply to: