Re: vrms on non-free
On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 03:54:08PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > No, it is not a bug. It is because of the fact that apt does not update
> > dpkg's available information. Dpkg will not change the Section (and other
> > parts of the package status like Filename) when you install the package.
> > It only changes this information in the status file once you have updated
> > the available information.
>
> Well, it depends if you consider the ugly way dpkg handles the section
> field a bug or not. It tries to use what is in the available file on the
> assumption that it has been overridden by the FTP scripts and ignores what
> is in the .deb.
Unfortunately it has to handle it that way for the sake of dselect.
Otherwise the info in the .deb could change it from what it actually in
the Packages file. Yes, it is a bug that dpkg doesn't really seperate
status and available information well enough, but surely it isn't
corruption as you have tried to state :)
> Anyone who doesn't use dselect will get burned by this, APT or no APT.
Then why not update the dpkg avail info when doing "apt-get update"? Dpkg
is the actual packaging program, and not apt. Shouldn't apt play dpkg's
game until changes are made to it to better suit the way things are now?
It wouldn't be the first time things were made compatible for the benefit
of the user (and since apt and dselect are the only real interfaces above
dpkg, apt is the one not playing the game right, but I know you've heard
this before).
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: