David Engel writes ("Re: ELF conversion"):
> > > OK, but why even let the installation get to the preinst script? How
> > > about we add a new dependency field in the control files which tells
> > > dpkg that the specified packages/versions must already be
> > Surely, we've got a few FSSTND participants besides you lurking here.
> > Dan Quinlan, are you out there?
>
> I'll try to get this discussed by the FSSTND, but there are some
> rather heated discussions going on around the proposed BSD merger, and
> some people don't seem to like me very much.
David Engel writes ("Re: ELF conversion"):
> > > > Yuk. Why can't we use a sensible location, such as /usr/lib/a.out/*
> > > > (and /usr/bin/a.out/* if we need it) ? See what the FSSTND has to say
> > > > about things that think they need
I moved these first few parts to the beginning to get them out of the
way since they're really side issues.
> > I suppose this explains why
> > dpkg doesn't squawk at me when I temporarily downgrade ld.so for
> > testing when I know the elf-* packages explciitly require a
> > semi-current version
David Engel writes:
> > > This elf-available bit is too klugy for me. Why can't we just use
> > > dpkg's standard dependency checking? Isn't that what it's there for?
> >
> > `Depends' lines won't stop you replacing an earlier version of a
> > package whose dependencies were satisfied with a new
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bill Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
>However, more directly to the point of moving elfward, I like Ian's
>suggestion about a elf-available(8) test during preinst of elf-dependent
>(elfish?) packages. It seems clean, simple, and effective to me.
And if
> However, more directly to the point of moving elfward, I like Ian's
> suggestion about a elf-available(8) test during preinst of elf-dependent
> (elfish?) packages. It seems clean, simple, and effective to me.
Perhaps, but just for this one, single, isolated case.
I think you are focusing too
> > This elf-available bit is too klugy for me. Why can't we just use
> > dpkg's standard dependency checking? Isn't that what it's there for?
>
> `Depends' lines won't stop you replacing an earlier version of a
> package whose dependencies were satisfied with a newer one shose
> dependencies ar
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> `Depends' lines won't stop you replacing an earlier version of a
> package whose dependencies were satisfied with a newer one shose
> dependencies aren't.
>
> This is necessary so that you can install or upgrade your system in
> any order. However, what we
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Engel)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 14:14:27 -0600 (CST)
Some people have suggested that the stuff in /lib be moved to
/lib/a.out or similar. This shouldn't be necessary as the ELF
stuff that goes in here should coexist.
Ah, yes. Of course. libc.so.4 and
David Engel writes ("Re: ELF conversion (was Re: 1.0 issues: FSSTND compliance
& preparation for a.out abolishment)"):
> > 2. Secondly, we arrange that all the new base packages have code in
> > the preinst that checks for the existence of the ELF libraries
> >
> 2. Secondly, we arrange that all the new base packages have code in
> the preinst that checks for the existence of the ELF libraries
> (perhaps by running /usr/bin/elf-available or something). If the
> libraries aren't found then the preinst returns a non-zero exit status
> and the upgrade abort
Ian J. writes:
> I think that as the dpkg maintainer I probably have a reasonably good
> idea of how we can go about this so as to maintain minimum problems:
>
> 1. Firstly, we make sure that all our a.out packages have a Depends
> line that refers to the a.out libc in some way. We're still behin
13 matches
Mail list logo
