Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 11:57:28PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> I just realized that xz-utils and liblzma2 technically aren’t ready to >>> be pseudo-essential: they use Depends: instead of Pre-Depends: for >>> their dependencies. >> >> This doesn't follow. Only the essential packages themselves must be usable >> when not configured, which is why those packages use pre-dependencies, not >> dependencies. The packages which are *themselves* pre-dependencies don't >> need to have their dependencies promoted to pre-dependencies. > > When dpkg is upgraded, the pre-dependency of dpkg on xz-utils would ensure > that xz-utils is configured before the updated dpkg is unpacked. Such an > upgrade is safe without any changes to xz-utils. > > If xz-utils is upgraded after that, however, IIUC the upgraded > xz-utils might be unpacked before its dependencies. In case anyone was in suspense, what I was missing is that the problematic upgrade scenario doesn’t occur in a lenny->sid, squeeze->sid, or sid->sid upgrade. So the impact of my worries for dpkg is virtually nil; sorry to trouble you (and thanks to Steve for the clue). I would still be interested in feedback on this subject [1], but AIUI for xz-utils it is academic now. Jonathan [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2010/03/msg00034.html> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100310160011.gb5...@progeny.tock