On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 08:27:57PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> writes: > > > Please find a proposed patch in attachment. Feel free to reword/improve > > if needed. > > Is the reason why you can't rely on configured for the prerm case the same > reason why you can't rely on it for the postinst case: because of breaking > circular dependencies and choosing one package to deconfigure first? It > just seems conceptually odd to use Pre-Depends for a dependency for a > removal script. > > I'm a little concerned that this sounds like an implicit encouragement to > use Pre-Depends more because you can rely on it, and I don't think we want > to do that. I'm not entirely sure how to avoid that, though, and in > context there are other warnings against using Pre-Depends. What we > really want to do is actively discourage circular dependencies, since in > the absence of circular dependencies, Depends works as expected and you > can rely on packages being configured for postinst and prerm dependencies.
I completly agree. > What happens if there are circular Pre-Depends? Does dpkg just give up at > that point and throw a fatal error? Experimentally, as soon as there is at least one Pre-Depends in a dependency loop, apt or dpkg throws an error and abort. Adding Pre-Depends to a circular dependency only make things worse not better. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
