On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Sven Joachim wrote: > On 2008-03-20 09:48 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Daniel Burrows wrote: > >> This is not a bug in aptitude. Upgrading apt removes the old library > >> that aptitude links against, and until the new aptitude is installed > >> there's no way it will be able to link. Vice versa (and what's indicated > >> above), upgrading aptitude causes it to link against a new apt library, > >> and it won't work until the new version of apt is installed. > > > > Daniel, the new aptitude will only be unpacked after the new apt > > has been unpacked. So there's no "dpkg" bug either AFAIK. > > This is not guaranteed. In fact, the dpkg log of the update from apt > 0.7.9 to 0.7.10 (the last one with an ABI bump) shows otherwise, apt's > reverse dependencies were unpacked _before_ it:
Right, only the order of configuration is guaranteed, indeed. So we come back to the "Pre-Depends" as the only solution: if we want to make sure that aptitude has the required library at unpack time, it has to Pre-Depend on the right version of the apt package. But as the same is true for any package and any library, I really don't think there's a good reason to special case aptitude. And if aptitude is left broken because the upgrade is badly interrupted, we always have "apt-get -f install" to fix up. The important point is that the view that dpkg has of the status of packages matches reality, and if interrupted at that time, the package is clearly marked as non-configured and thus non-functional. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
