Sean Whitton <spwhit...@spwhitton.name> writes: > We noticed that the triggers spec[0] says "It is not defined in what > order triggers will run." We think this may invalidate your current > approach. Or did you already see this and account for it?
I'll have to refresh, but from what I recall offhand, that might be a problem. (And perhaps I missed/forgot that from the spec.) And for what it's worth, when I left things last, I'd mostly been reasoning from Manoj's last graph here (and the subset covered in policy): https://people.debian.org/~srivasta/MaintainerScripts.html In any case, if I remember correctly, I was under the impression that they may respect dependency ordering at least to the extent that the postinst configure does, and hence allow us to avoid having to handle that ourselves (e.g. as we do now, not entirely satisfactorily, via tsort). I believe I also did some testing in a VM, and the ordering was respected for some test packages I created, but of course that's not a promise. Thanks for taking a look. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org GPG as of 2011-07-10 E6A9 DA3C C9FD 1FF8 C676 D2C4 C0F0 39E9 ED1B 597A GPG as of 2002-11-03 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
