Your message dated Sun, 3 Mar 2019 00:59:19 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#483997: dpkg: please allow for a mechanism to specify
postinst ordering beyond Depends:
has caused the Debian Bug report #483997,
regarding dpkg: please allow for a mechanism to specify postinst ordering
beyond Depends:
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
483997: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=483997
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.14.19
Severity: normal
Hi all,
Right now, if you have two packages that have a relationship with each
other beyond a strict Dependency, there is no way to communicate that
relationship to dpkg. I'm talking about things covered semantically
by the Should-Start field of the LSB init scripts and things like that.
There are several package sets in the archive where A does not Depend on
B, but needs to have it's postinst run after B in certain circumstances.
It would be great if we had a new field in debian/control for something
semantically equivalent to Should-Start or configure-before.
Thanks,
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_US.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL
set to en_US.utf8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages dpkg depends on:
ii coreutils 6.10-6 The GNU core utilities
ii libc6 2.7-11 GNU C Library: Shared libraries
dpkg recommends no packages.
-- no debconf information
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| ,''`. Stephen Gran |
| : :' : [email protected] |
| `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer |
| `- http://www.debian.org |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Control: tag -1 wontfix
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 10:54:36 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 10:10:18 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> > What about making sure dpkg take recommends into account when ordering
> > postinst scripts? If package A recommends B, and both A and B is
> > installed in the same dpkg run, the postinst scripts should run in order
> > B.postinst, A.postinst. It would solve the problem I see, and allow for
> > a mechanism to specify postinst ordering also for non-depend
> > relationships.
>
> I don't think this is a good idea, and I should review the old discussion
> in this bug, but my gut feeling is that there's not much there, and this
> should simply be tagged wontfix and closed. Will be doing that this week.
I still doesn't look like a good idea, so I'm closing this now. These
problems all look like things that can be fixed with packaging
improvements, to make them more robust in any case.
> The problem is that it would make the dependency resolution harder, as
> that's in fact changing the Recommends to Depends. So dpkg would have
> less leeway when there are dependency cycles and similar. But see
> below.
>
> > Is there a better way to fix the problems we experience in bugs #760084
> > and #745834?
>
> I think using triggers would solve all your problems. It would also
> cover the case where a user installs sitesummary, but not apache2, and
> later on installs apache2. You might need to coordinate with the apache2
> team to create possibly an explicit trigger name for this. Or would
> that not solve your problem?
Thanks,
Guillem
--- End Message ---
