Re: dpkg upgrade/downgrade dependency problem
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Juan Cespedes wrote:
> If I read the bug reports correctly, dpkg allows you to configure things
> when other packages dependencies on those things is unmet.. Which means it
> does not inspect reverse dependancies and reverse provide dependancies.
My reading was different. As I understood it, Pre-depends were not be
respected in the reverse direction, i.e., dpkg allowed you to remove a
package 'foo' v1.1, or maybe just downgrade it to 1.0, even if package
'bar' *pre-depended* on >= 1.1. (Or maybe we're saying the same
thing, Jason, I'm not sure.)
Juan, I think you should ask Jason what dpkg problems are making it a
pain in the butt for deity. Our plan for slink, if I understand
correctly, is to let apt be our package interface (i.e., get rid of
dselect), but still continue to use dpkg for the low-level package
installation.
If my assumption here is in fact true, then we should be looking at
what dpkg problems are creating problems for deity.
.....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: