Bill Allombert wrote: > > * That test does not cover unconfigured/half-configured > > dependencies, which could also potentially break a menu item. > > Yes, but only if there are circular dependencies( which have their own > share of issue). Without circular dependencies, if a package is > configured, then all its dependency must be configured.
That's not really true, dpkg will leave packages configured while their dependencies are in states such as unpacked. > > * If a package is temporarily de-configured in the middle of an apt run > > and then re-configured, update-menus will not be run in time to > > notice this happened, and the menu item will remain available > > throughout. > > * There's a window in package removal where all the files are gone, > > but the postrm has not run, when the menu items are certianly broken > > but still vidible. This is surely a more common case than any of > > the others, and yet update-menus doesn't handle it. (Triggers may > > have narrowed this window, I haven't checked.) > > Not sure about those two, but menu suffers from various race condition > by the mere fact that most window manager only read the menu file > at startup. However triggers does not affect that. So, if menu suffers from all these problems, why make Debian as a whole more complex to deal with one edge case that is unlikely to affect anyone any more than these? > > * No such checks are done for desktop files, which are of course, where > > most naive users will really get their menus from.. > > I do not take any part in the numerous defect of the XDG draft and its > various implementations. Except that it's made menu nearly completly irrelevant. -- see shy jo, washing his hands of it all
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
