On 2011-04-27 19:54, 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. Thanks, I read that already above, and that do not (yet) address my two points. > > 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 wonder what's the point of a discussion then if it has zero effect on the decision. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Developer -- 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/20110427183524.GA20223@r500-debian