On 2011-04-27 13:46, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [1] If we count the situation for resuming broken upgrade, there is a > > some chance you'll have to call dpkg manually or some hacks > > to proceed anyway. > > Not always. There are states dpkg goes through that 'apt-get install' > can "recover" from on its own. You don't always have to go to dpkg.
Sure, 'some chance' == 'not always'. > Also, what if apt wants to call one of its auxilliary binaries during > the install/upgrade? I imagine it's not implemented that way _now_, > but a Pre-Depends would make such a thing a lot safer if they want it. > (Same is true if they want to dlopen a library during the install, but > that's somewhat less likely.) That's a valid point. However both of that don't fall under {shlibs:Depends} and can be pre-depended on explicitly later when needed. > > I object to this change. > On what grounds? [...] I don't see a problem which would be fixed by that change. Successful upgrades are successful, broken upgrades may require and will may require low-level fixing in some cases. > Pro: > - Would make upgrades more robust I have to agree in theory. Had someone encountered this at least once since APT has born? > - Would make apt implementation more flexible About auxiliary binaries? Answered above. > [...] apt is quite low on the dependency chain, depending only > on some quite low-level libraries, so the impact should be minimal. Yes, that's true. For me, it's very-minimal-value positive versus minimal-value negative. -- 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/20110427193800.GC20223@r500-debian