On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:12:39AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: > One is the use of makedev in package postinst scripts. I don't know > offhand what the set of packages are that have an implicit dependency on > makedev, those would all need to be updated to make the dependency > explicit before we take makedev out of the set of packages assumed to be > present on a system.
postinst scripts on my system use something like [ -x /dev/MAKEDEV ] && /dev/MAKEDEV foo some use "-e", bad maintainers... There might some packages that fail to check. Btw, this was inspired by the fact that /dev/MAKEDEV symlink is gone without fanfare in ubuntu jaunty. The still ship the package thou.. We could fix it properly by leaving the package :) > Another is the use of makedev in debootstrap and friends. It at least > used to be a necessary part of the build environment for those tools if > not the runtime. Adding explicit dependencies or build dependencies to > such packages would be required if makedev is no longer assumed to be > present on a system. debootstrap: build-depends on debootstrap and builds a devices.tar.gz during buildtime. cdebootstrap: doesn't use makedev at all, does some mknod's itself in a helper package on runtime. > And directly or indirectly through the *debootstrap packages, I assume > debian-installer still has a dependency on makedev. Using the devices.tar.gz approach, deboostrap only needs it build-time. cdebootstrap (which d-i uses), appears to have a internal package for creating critical devices: /usr/share/cdebootstrap/cdebootstrap-helper-makedev.deb It is, ofcourse possible that devices.tar.gz / cdebootstrap-helper-makedev.deb forget to create some devices that makedev will create anyway in postinst (which will get installed automatically due to required priority). -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
