On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:00:09AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:40:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > + Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages > > + while an <tt>essential</tt> package is in an unconfigured > > + state, all <tt>essential</tt> must supply all their core > > + functionality even when unconfigured. If the package cannot > > + satisfy this requirement it should not be tagged as essential, > > + and any packages depending on this package should instead > > + have explicit dependency fields as appropriate. > Sorry that I missed most of this, but... > I think this will make the dependency chain even more complex. I agree It doesn't actually do anything, it just documents existing caveats. > with the idea that essential packages should be functional even without > being configured, but then you will need to make all essential packages > static binaries to satisfy this. ldso and libc6 are already Essential, so the dynamic linker, and libc6 are guaranteed to be available. > Remember that dpkg allows them to be > unpacked even when pre-deps aren't satisfied, just not configured. So if a > library dependency isn't met, and it is unpacked, then there is no way to > have it be functional. Erm. A Pre-Dependency must be satisfied when a package is being unpacked, although it doesn't have to be entirely configured at this point. It does mean Essential packages need to have all their dependencies listed as Pre-Depends, but that's okay. I'm not really clear on what you're saying here, but I'm fairly sure there isn't an actual problem. > Maybe dpkg _should_ be changed to check the status of essential packages > before installing things. It seems like that is the core problem and is > much easier to solve. Plus it makes sense, since essential packages are > supposedly required for a minimaly functional system (a lot of which dpkg > depends on anyway). It's not necessary though, and that'd give you much stricter ordering requirements than dpkg currently needs. (Although Apt currently enforces this --- see Santiago's and Jason's comments in -policy previously) Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred. ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.'' -- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgp299J7BpVPr.pgp
Description: PGP signature