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

Bug#30827: apt does not predepend on its shared libraries.

Just as an aside, I had done this for earlier versions of apt that I
built.  I recall being overruled (possibly over concerns about not
discussing my decision).  I still believe Santiago is correct.

On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:

> Package: apt
> Version: all of them, starting with the one in the upgrades-i386 directory for hamm.
> Priority: high
> [ "Priority: high" means that maybe slink release has not to be delayed to
> fix this bug, but it will be *much* better if it is fixed before the
> release anyway. I'm not using "Severity" here to not being flamed ].
> [ Note: I'm reporting this bug because I already know of a case of someone
>   that managed to broke his apt because of this ].
> apt should ideally use Pre-Depends instead of Depends for the shared
> libraries it depends on, since most people use it is a fundamental part of
> the packaging system.
> The great inconvenience of having an apt which does not work because it
> was upgraded before its shared libraries is by far much bigger than the
> small inconvenience of a new apt not being unpacked because it does
> not meet its pre-dependencies.
> For this reason I think apt should use Pre-Depends for libstc++ and libc.
> If we are publicising apt as the "ideal installation method", it should be
> as robust as dpkg and dselect, and the Pre-Depends field will give it the
> same robustness of an essential package.
> If you have to ask in debian-devel before adding this Pre-Depends field,
> please do so.
> Thanks.

Reply to: