Re: Hosed potato/main/Packages...
Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
> On 30 Sep 1999, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
>
> > Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org> writes:
> > > Yeah, just uploaded some new packages which fix the typo.
> >
> > I just hand-edited my available file. :-)
> >
> > > Maybe it should be trapped by dinstall
> >
> > I tend to agree. I wonder how that can be done using the tools
> > themselves, so we don't end up with implementations that differ.
>
> If the "installing programs" go belly up because of typos in individual
> packages, it is the responsibility of the build program to validate those
[ etc. etc. ...]
Okay, people are over-reacting a little here. It's not a bug in the
package, it's a bug in me. I added `optionnal' to the override file
(carelessly cut'n'waste from the package). The override file is what
matters, not the package (that is, after all, why it's there... to
override).
Yes, dinstall probably should validate the priority field. However,
the build tools should not. Apt should definitely not die on invalid
priorities, and indeed, Jason has already fixed it not to and it won't
do so in future versions. Dselect, AFAIK, doesn't die, nor does dpkg.
This breakage, was fixed within hours of being first reported (at
least on master, propagation not included), and only affects apt
weanies^H^H^H^H^Husers [;)]. The End. (I hope?)
--
James
Reply to: