Hi,
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Anders Kaseorg wrote:
> > So in this case the pre-dependency should *not* be set, as it only
> > serves to complicate the upgrade path.
>
> If this becomes the consensus of debian-devel, there are two things that
> should probably be changed:
>
> • The section of the dpkg-maintscript-helper(1) about the Pre-Depends
> being “unconditionally required” should be clarified.
You're misparsing the documentation. It says "using
[dpkg-maintscript-helper] unconditionally requires a pre-dependency" but
then it advise you to avoid the Pre-Depends by protecting the call with
a test:
if dpkg-maintscript-helper supports <command>; then
dpkg-maintscript-helper <command> ...
fi
> • In Debhelper, dh_installdeb shouldn’t add this Pre-Depends automatically
> via ${misc:Pre-Depends} (see #574443).
I think it's fine for debhelper to do it automatically but maybe it could offer
an option to switch to the protected variant and not set the Pre-Depends.
I don't really think that the Pre-Depends on dpkg are problematic. We must just
ensure that we don't get any Pre-Depends loop with dpkg's (pre|)dependencies.
Of course, the pre-depends become mostly irrelevant when the version in
oldstable supports it but that's not the case yet. And it's not unusual for
people to try an upgrade that skips a release... even if we don't officially
support it, it's not a reason to break them when there's no really need to.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110307071609.gf14...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
