On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Andreas Beckmann <deb...@abeckmann.de> wrote: > On 2012-05-05 15:48, Dave Steele wrote: >> That doesn't seem like a fair thing to do to dpkg. > > It's still a bug in dpkg, even if it's not trivial to fix. > ... >> Is there a reason for doing the purges in that order? If not, consider > > Because we find more (rare) errors that way. Therefore I'm against > changing the purge order. >
OK, but... I disagree about there being a bug in dpkg, if it can purge the packages, in mass, in the right dependency order. I worry that the dpkg fix would have undesirable side-effects. The packager may be surprised to see an empty directory he made being deleted by another process, due to management of a totally different package. The number of desired exceptions could get out of hand. I have 101 unique paths, in 170 logs, causing that error in my fail directory. That's approaching half of the failed packages. If we don't eliminate this issue as the possible cause of those failures, any other problems that may be in that pile are being hidden. Perhaps the patch could be implemented until such time as the dpkg issue is resolved? In any case, I look forward to getting past the *ml logjam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
