On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Marc Singer wrote: > On Sun, Sep 15, 2002 at 11:53:55PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Previously Marc Singer wrote: > > > Apparently, both programs write the file. If both accept an empty > > > file, what is the harm in both of them creating it when it doesn't > > > exist? > > > > The file not existing indicates major breakage or a bad install. > > In both cases aborting is a sensible thing to do. > > ...or someone is using apt to build a secondary cache of packages. > > I can see that there is much resistance to changing this behavior. > Can you see how this makes it difficult to use dpkg and apt in new > ways?
Is running touch so hard? > While there is some flexibility granted by the configuration tree, > both packages appear to make the assumption that they are installing > to the filesystem where they are executing *and* that the applications > were already installed there. No, they don't. > I'm working on a method of creating a root filesystem for an embedded > system. I have been working around these assumptions. Yet, can you > see utility in relaxing these behaviors? Look at debootstrap.
