Hi, On Thu, 02 Jun 2011, Ian Jackson wrote: > If a new behaviour is needed, it should have a new name. Otherwise > you break existing packages.
I know this. This is precisely why I'm asking the question of which packages require this behaviour. If none or very few require it, I might consider doing the change with the current name and provide new names for the old behaviour. Just for reference, if you review my patch at http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/hertzog/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=c98b69d76f78114afd344b9dc0aef47c6f3fe00b ... > So I would suggest: > > * New trigger directive "trigger-noawait", works like > dpkg-trigger --no-await ...you will notice this is called "activate-noawait" > But we do also need a way to do this for file triggers: > > * New trigger directive "interest-filenoawait" which has the > following semantics: > - when triggered explicitly by name by a triggering package, > the triggering package awaits the trigger unless the > triggering package specifies --no-await > - when triggered implicitly by installation of a file, the > triggering package does not await the trigger this is called "interest-noawait" except that I have made no difference when the file trigger is explicitly called by dpkg-trigger. I don't see a good reason for this. 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/20110603065709.gi13...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
