Re: empty status
On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Marc Singer wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 11:53:55PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Marc Singer wrote:
> > > Apparently, both programs write the file. If both accept an empty
> > > file, what is the harm in both of them creating it when it doesn't
> > > exist?
> >
> > The file not existing indicates major breakage or a bad install.
> > In both cases aborting is a sensible thing to do.
>
> ...or someone is using apt to build a secondary cache of packages.
>
> I can see that there is much resistance to changing this behavior.
> Can you see how this makes it difficult to use dpkg and apt in new
> ways?
Is running touch so hard?
> While there is some flexibility granted by the configuration tree,
> both packages appear to make the assumption that they are installing
> to the filesystem where they are executing *and* that the applications
> were already installed there.
No, they don't.
> I'm working on a method of creating a root filesystem for an embedded
> system. I have been working around these assumptions. Yet, can you
> see utility in relaxing these behaviors?
Look at debootstrap.
Reply to: