Re: supporting seemless package renames
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
>> On Thursday 08 April 2010 15:52:19 Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>
>>> Hmm, sounds like a bug in policy. I think disappeared packages ought
>>> to receive prerm. Would you like to raise the issue, or should I?
>> Disappeared packages do not receive prerm because of complicated dpkg logic
>> behind it (KISS, KISS...), by the time of dpkg decides that package will
>> disappear the files of the package may be deleted already. Given that I suppose
>> that this behavior is intentional.
>
> Ah, so the problem is that if prerm errors out there is no way to
> cancel the removal? And if I understand correctly, you are suggesting
> to run prerm before unpacking the replacing package to fix this. For
> what it’s worth, what I was thinking of before was to run prerm but
> resign to ignoring errors from it. Your idea is interesting; I will
> think about it.
Eeeh, well, I didn't quite understand you thoughts here. The point is, as I
understand, dpkg doesn't know will the package be removed or not until its
last file is replaced, and when it is it's too late to run prerm. Anyway, if
you find something else to think out of my words, it's fine :)
--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer
Reply to: