Jiri Palecek wrote: > Hello, Hi
> On Friday 18 April 2008 01:00:26 Luk Claes wrote: >> Jiří Paleček wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:52:06 +0200, Luk Claes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> BTW recommends are totally irrelevant when we talk about configurability. >> Indeed, but d-a-k needs apt to configure, gnupg only indirectly... > > I don't think the question is about directly/indirectly. Imagine a > (fictitious) situation, where pkg B has an optional feature requiring pkg C > (therefore, B recommends - or even suggests - C). Pkg A uses B, but needs > crucially that optional feature. In this case (I think), it would be > appropriate to declare the dependency although it's indirect, but, an > agreement between the maintainers in question could make it possible to > avoided (eg. by creating a dummy package A-with-feature). I thought we were talking about a real issue instead of an imaginary one? The one you show above is not comparable as apt is running apt-key in it's postinst as well, so it needs gnupg no matter what d-a-k would have as dependencies. > But we are not in such a situation, because apt needs gnupg to configure, too > (it would have failed if it was configured before d-a-k, which is, however, > impossible, because apt Dep: d-a-k). And the whole thing of dropping the > dependency, IIUC, was made to allow installations of debian w/o gnupg. Adding > gnupg as a dependency of apt (which is Essential) wouldn't help this purpose, > so it's even more important for the maintainers to agree how to make it work > (and then do it). AFAIK apt-key is supposed to be changed to only depend on gpgv instead of gnupg... >>>> You mean apt-key from the apt package... so I'm reassigning the bug. >>> The situation is: apt-key needs gpg to work, apt-key needs d-a-k, apt >>> calls apt-key in postinst, d-a-k calls apt-key in postins. > >>> The only solutions I see are: >> Hmm, you're only talking about bootstrapping here, not about >> installation, nor about upgrading... > > No, I talk about them, too. I talk about traces of dpkg actions that > shouldn't > fail and should produce correct results. Also, upgrading is not an issue here > since none of the dependencies in question are versioned. d-i uses d-a-k-udeb which still doesn't fail AFAICS, so back to bootstrapping (aka using (c)debootstrap). > It is sufficient to have them unpacked (at least I think). The problem is > that "apt Dep: d-a-k, apt Dep: gnupg" doesn't warrant this. Consider the > following trace of dpkg actions (U - unpack, C - configure, initial state of > the packages is purged): Did you try this? > 1: U d-a-k > 2: U apt > 3: C d-a-k > 4: U gnupg > 5: C gnupg > 6: C apt > > which is permitted with those dependencies, but fails in step 3 (apt is > unpacked, so you call apt-file, but it fails due to missing gpg). apt-file is a very different package, I guess you mean apt-key. > BTW what about the other proposals? Do you think they're infeasible? They don't make much sense except as a hack if all else fails IMHO. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
