On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:29:09PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Thu, 03 Jul 2008, Bryan Donlan wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 6:25 AM, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Package: release-notes > > > > Severity: important > > > > > > > > To work-around a problem that can happen in the perl 5.10 upgrade (see > > > > #479711), the perl scripts contained in dpkg (update-alternatives, > > > > dpkg-divert) have been modified... but for the work-around to be used, > > > > the > > > > new dpkg must obviously be installed first, before the dist-upgrade. > > > > > > > > Given that the new dpkg also supports triggers, we should probably also > > > > recommend to upgrade apt/aptitude at the same time otherwise those tools > > > > might be confused by the new package status... > > > > > > Would it be better to just set pre-depends on the appropriate version > > > of dpkg in perl? That ought to ensure they are upgraded in the correct > > > order, even for people who don't read the release notes :) > > > > Hum, this might be possible indeed. We don't like frequent use of > > Pre-Depends but this one might be justifiable. Ccing -devel for comments > > and [EMAIL PROTECTED] as they'd have to do it. > > For the perl work-around it's ok (as unpacked scripts will be immediately > used), but if we don't ask the user to upgrade apt/aptitude separately, > then the old versions will be used (apt doesn't restart itself!) and it > might cause troubles. > > So even with this pre-depends, I'd still recommend a separate upgrade > prior to the real dist-upgrade.
This sounds similar to the woody->sarge upgrade, where we were also recommended to upgrade perl and aptitude first, and only then do the main dist-upgrade. That worked then, except that my machine ran out of disk space partway through the upgrade! -- hendrik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]