Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.13.21
Severity: minor

Looking at the description for Depends: you'll see:
       Depends: <package list>
              List of packages that are required for this package to provide a
              non-trivial  amount  of  functionality.  The package maintenance
              software will not allow a package to be installed if  the  pack-
              ages  listed in its Depends field aren't installed (at least not
              without using the force options),  and  will  run  the  postinst
              scripts  of  packages  listed in Depends: fields before those of
              the packages which depend on them, and run prerm scripts before.

The last sentence is very long and incomprehensible. The first half is 
clear (up to ...force options),) but then the author tries to explain
something about the order of certain scripts being run. 

If I denote with (a) the postinst scripts of the packages in Depends,
with (b) their prerm and (a') for the postints scripts of the package(s) 
being installed, and (b') for the prerm scripts of same packages, I
think I get as order:
(b) (a) (a') 
but I am not sure. Also this seems to be for installation, but says
nothing about upgrades (with possible new Depends:). I read 
file://localhost/usr/share/doc/debian-policy/policy.html/ch-maintainerscripts.html
to understand this, but even there this level of detail is not given
(it mainly talks about the scripts of the package being
installed/upgraded an so on, and only very little about other
packages). 

Given that this is a very complex issue, and that this is the only
place in the entire man page the postinst and prerm scripts are
mentioned at all, I suggest removing the second half of this sentence
and add an appropriate reference in the SEE ALSO section to the
debian policy or some other definitive reference. 

Alternative, you could start being more verbose also in other places
of the man page regarding these scripts, but I think this would be out
of scope here.

If you'd like a patch for this suggestion, please tell me.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.14.6-grsec-cz03
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii  binutils                      2.17-1     The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  cpio                          2.6-16     GNU cpio -- a program to manage ar
ii  dpkg                          1.13.21    package maintenance system for Deb
ii  make                          3.81-2     The GNU version of the "make" util
ii  patch                         2.5.9-4    Apply a diff file to an original
ii  perl [perl5]                  5.8.8-4    Larry Wall's Practical Extraction 
ii  perl-modules                  5.8.8-4    Core Perl modules

Versions of packages dpkg-dev recommends:
ii  bzip2                         1.0.3-3    high-quality block-sorting file co
ii  gcc [c-compiler]              4:4.0.3-4  The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-3.3 [c-compiler]          1:3.3.6-13 The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-3.4 [c-compiler]          3.4.6-1    The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.0 [c-compiler]          4.0.3-3    The GNU C compiler
ii  gcc-4.1 [c-compiler]          4.1.1-5    The GNU C compiler

-- no debconf information
-- 
      Dr. Helge Kreutzmann                     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
           Dipl.-Phys.                   http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
        64bit GNU powered                     gpg signed mail preferred
           Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to