Just as an aside, I had done this for earlier versions of apt that I built. I recall being overruled (possibly over concerns about not discussing my decision). I still believe Santiago is correct.
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Santiago Vila wrote: > Package: apt > Version: all of them, starting with the one in the upgrades-i386 directory > for hamm. > Priority: high > > [ "Priority: high" means that maybe slink release has not to be delayed to > fix this bug, but it will be *much* better if it is fixed before the > release anyway. I'm not using "Severity" here to not being flamed ]. > > [ Note: I'm reporting this bug because I already know of a case of someone > that managed to broke his apt because of this ]. > > apt should ideally use Pre-Depends instead of Depends for the shared > libraries it depends on, since most people use it is a fundamental part of > the packaging system. > > The great inconvenience of having an apt which does not work because it > was upgraded before its shared libraries is by far much bigger than the > small inconvenience of a new apt not being unpacked because it does > not meet its pre-dependencies. > > For this reason I think apt should use Pre-Depends for libstc++ and libc. > > If we are publicising apt as the "ideal installation method", it should be > as robust as dpkg and dselect, and the Pre-Depends field will give it the > same robustness of an essential package. > > If you have to ask in debian-devel before adding this Pre-Depends field, > please do so. > > Thanks. > >
