On Tue, Aug 03, 1999 at 12:05:39PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am happy to tell you that we agree completely on the behaviour of dpkg on > your example. But you are ignoring a very important aspect of my proposal: > THIS ONLY HAPPENS FOR DIRECTORIES INTERNAL TO PACKAGES. It happens because > olddir is actually REMOVED by the deinstallation.
This doesn't seem to be the case.
* Create three packages:
test1 version 1.0 mimicing your average /usr/doc-using package
test1 version 2.0 mimicing your average /usr/share/doc-using package
test3 version 1.0 mimicing base-files
test1 1.0 has a file /my_usr/doc/test1/copyright,
and depends on test3
test1 2.0 has a file /my_usr/share/doc/test1/copyright,
and depends on test3
test3 1.0 has a file /my_usr/doc/copyright/GPL,
and a file /my_usr/share/doc/test3/copyright
* dpkg --install test3_1.0_all.deb
* mv /my_usr/doc/copyright /my_usr/share/doc/
* rmdir /my_usr/doc
* ln -s /my_usr/share/doc /my_usr/doc
* dpkg --install test1_1.0_all.deb
* dpkg --install test1_2.0_all.deb
* ls -l /my_usr/doc/test1 -> empty
* ls -l /my_usr/share/doc/test1 -> empty
* dpkg -L test1 | grep my_usr/share/doc -> not empty
The packages are available as:
http://www.debian.org/~ajt/test1_1.0_all.deb
http://www.debian.org/~ajt/test1_2.0_all.deb
http://www.debian.org/~ajt/test3_1.0_all.deb
Possibly I'm just misunderstanding what you're suggesting should be done
though. Can you give a sequence of commands that does whatever you're
suggesting, and still has those three packages survive unscathed?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
pgp96GMp6BSA0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
