[Dropping the bug cc: again, I don't think that has anything to do with this question]
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 06:26:27PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > So in this case the pre-dependency > > should *not* be set, as it only serves to complicate the upgrade path. > I think this example might deserve a closer look. Documentating the > required dpkg version seems useful for backporters and others who > would use the package in unusual situations. Taken in sum, there is a cost to that documentation. It makes the Packages files bigger, so adds to their download time; and it increases the amount of metadata that high-level package managers (apt et al.) have to store in memory and process, even if it becomes a no-op for the actual upgrade. > What apt, aptitude do: > I don't know. Do they allow an already satisfied Pre-Depends to > complicate the upgrade path? IIRC dpkg, as an essential package, > always gets upgraded first anyway, but I am not so familiar with this > code. It should not complicate the upgrade path; it may will (slightly) complicate the calculation of that upgrade path. > Bug#593177 brings the possibility of change. In the extreme case the > meaning of Pre-Depends could change to "the depended-on package and > its dependencies must be configured at the currently unpacked > version", which would make upgrade impossible in the following case. > Luckily, bug#593177 can probably be addressed with less dramatic > changes. Yes, frankly I don't know why you're even presenting that as an option; I don't believe anyone involved in that bug report is arguing for such a thing. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
