On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 13:58:08 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> We basically know the reasons on both sides. Most objections are of
> social nature (fear of "APT has a Pre-Depends, let's add one to"), and
> Eugene thinks it is unfair if APT were to pre-depend on things while
> Cupt would not,
On 2011-05-20 13:58, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Eugene thinks it is unfair if APT were to pre-depend on things while
> Cupt would not [...]
No, I didn't say that. I did say it is possible to upgrade a Debian
system without APT, and you cannot attribute anything beyond this to
me.
--
Eugene V.
Julian Andres Klode writes ("Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on
${shlibs:Depends}"):
> On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The purpose is to make sure that we have considered all the up- and
> > down-sides of the proposal, and specifically to ma
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:28 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Julian Andres Klode writes ("Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on
> ${shlibs:Depends}"):
> > So we'd need one supporter now to speak up in order to get a neutral
> > level again.
>
> The purpose
Julian Andres Klode writes ("Re: [RFC] Changing APT to pre-depend on
${shlibs:Depends}"):
> So we'd need one supporter now to speak up in order to get a neutral
> level again.
The purpose of the policy rule asking for consensus here is to not to
count people on one side or
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> > "We might some day later change the way apt works for upgrades" is not an
>> > argument for adding a pre-dependency now.
>
>> But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
>>
On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:09 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > "We might some day later change the way apt works for upgrades" is not an
> > > argument for adding a pre-dependency now.
>
> > But that we do want to prevent a bro
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > "We might some day later change the way apt works for upgrades" is not an
> > argument for adding a pre-dependency now.
> But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
> "dpkg -i ...; apt-get install -f
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 18:48, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
> "dpkg -i ...; apt-get install -f" idiom (where ... is APT) -- certainly
> is an argument.
Let me try to rephrase that:
The only strong positive argument for the chang
On Do, 2011-04-28 at 08:41 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:46:50PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [Eugene V. Lyubimkin]
> > > Second, why the APT's ability to upgrade is broken under these
> > > conditions? Unless I'm missing something, the upgrade cannot be
> > > start
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:53:26PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> ${shlibs:Depends}. The reason is simple:
>
> When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> library version (due to new symbols,
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 01:46:50PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Eugene V. Lyubimkin]
> > Second, why the APT's ability to upgrade is broken under these
> > conditions? Unless I'm missing something, the upgrade cannot be
> > started in the middle of another upgrade [1].
> > [1] If we count the
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 04:55, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> As discussed elsewhere in this thread, anyone relying on apt for
>> upgrades would be using apt to upgrade apt, so an alternative to
>> consider would be making apt fake the pre-depends internally.
>
> Is it feasible for apt to fake the pre-
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 20:46, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Also, what if apt wants to call one of its auxilliary binaries during
> the install/upgrade? I imagine it's not implemented that way _now_,
> but a Pre-Depends would make such a thing a lot safer if they want it.
In theory this could happen
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Do, 2011-04-28 at 09:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:18:05 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> >
> > > We do count situations like
> > > http://lists.debian.org/deity/2011/04/msg00154.html
> > >
> > > <676992.8107
On Do, 2011-04-28 at 09:42 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:18:05 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>
> > We do count situations like
> > http://lists.debian.org/deity/2011/04/msg00154.html
> >
> > <676992.81078...@web26502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> >
> That seems silly. Th
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 09:18:05 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> We do count situations like
> http://lists.debian.org/deity/2011/04/msg00154.html
>
> <676992.81078...@web26502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
>
That seems silly. They broke their system using dpkg -i, they can fix
it with dpkg -i.
Chee
On Mi, 2011-04-27 at 19:34 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2011-04-27 14:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> > ${shlibs:Depends}.
>
> > When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> > library
]] "Eugene V. Lyubimkin"
Hi,
| On 2011-04-27 20:14, Adam Borowski wrote:
| > > First, this statement is not true because other package managers
| > > exist.
| >
| > You mean, one could manually hunt down and locate a .deb file, wget
| > then feed it to dpkg?
|
| Well, yes, one can. I did it on
[Jonathan Nieder]
> libc6 (>= 2.3.4),
> libgcc1 (>= 1:4.1.1),
> libstdc++6 (>= 4.5),
> zlib1g (>= 1:1.2.2.3)
>
> It would create a false sense of security regarding use of those
> packages without configuring apt. If apt is in the middle of an
> upgrade, packages that it
Hi,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Are there any real drawbacks? Would it cause worse behaviour or problems
> for the error-rewind paths if either the pre-deps, or apt fails to install,
> as compared with the current status-quo?
Based on the list
libc6 (>= 2.3.4),
libgcc1
On 2011-04-27 13:46, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > [1] If we count the situation for resuming broken upgrade, there is a
> > some chance you'll have to call dpkg manually or some hacks
> > to proceed anyway.
>
> Not always. There are states dpkg goes through that 'apt-get install'
> can "recover" fr
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:34, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2011-04-27 14:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
>> ${shlibs:Depends}.
>
>> When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
>> library version (due to
On 2011-04-27 20:14, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > First, this statement is not true because other package managers exist.
>
> You mean, one could manually hunt down and locate a .deb file, wget then
> feed it to dpkg?
Well, yes, one can. I did it once in the past.
But the point was there are other h
First, +1 to the Pre-Depends. I think it's well-justified here.
[Eugene V. Lyubimkin]
> Second, why the APT's ability to upgrade is broken under these
> conditions? Unless I'm missing something, the upgrade cannot be
> started in the middle of another upgrade [1].
> [1] If we count the situatio
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> ${shlibs:Depends}. The reason is simple:
>
> When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> library version (due to new symbols, whatever), and APT gets
>
On 2011-04-27 19:54, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> > > ${shlibs:Depends}.
> >
> > > When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> > > library version (due to new symbols, whatever), and APT gets
> > >
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:34:35PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> On 2011-04-27 14:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> > ${shlibs:Depends}.
>
> > When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> > library v
On Mi, 2011-04-27 at 19:34 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2011-04-27 14:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> > ${shlibs:Depends}.
>
> > When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> > library
Hi,
On 2011-04-27 14:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> ${shlibs:Depends}.
> When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> library version (due to new symbols, whatever), and APT gets
> unpacked befor
On Mi, 2011-04-27 at 14:53 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
> ${shlibs:Depends}. The reason is simple:
>
> When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
> library version (due to new symbols, whateve
Hi,
I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on
${shlibs:Depends}. The reason is simple:
When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer
library version (due to new symbols, whatever), and APT gets
unpacked before the library, the system's ability
32 matches
Mail list logo
