On Mi, 2011-04-27 at 19:34 +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > Hi, > > On 2011-04-27 14:53, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > I hereby request comments on changing APT to pre-depend on > > ${shlibs:Depends}. > > > When we upload a new version of APT, depending on a newer > > library version (due to new symbols, whatever), and APT gets > > unpacked before the library, the system's ability to upgrade is > > broken, unless you fix it manually via calls to dpkg. > > First, this statement is not true because other package managers exist. > > Second, why the APT's ability to upgrade is broken under these > conditions? Unless I'm missing something, the upgrade cannot be > started in the middle of another upgrade [1]. The system's ability to upgrade without involving dpkg is broken if a newer version of APT is unpacked via dpkg.
> > And, "I'll upload if there is no strong objection" is probably > void, because Debian policy requires consensus, not a nonexistance of a > strong objection. No. We *should* require consensus. The only way to force a change against the maintainer's will is tech-ctte or a GR. We do not have a clear decision in the APT team yet, though, as mvo is not here currently. > > I object to this change. So we'd need one supporter now to speak up in order to get a neutral level again. -- Julian Andres Klode - Debian Developer, Ubuntu Member See http://wiki.debian.org/JulianAndresKlode and http://jak-linux.org/. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1303926882.18323.7.camel@jak-thinkpad