On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 07:48:51AM +0100, Juergen Kahnert wrote: > > not really. there's nothing that forces the _unpack_ order in a plain > > 'Depends:'. > > are you sure? I can't find an example at my software log for this. Ok, I > didn't checked everything, but for example ash: > > [...] > > Just coincidence? The unpacking order is the same like the get order.
in a certain sense yes; with very short package installation lists not pulling in any bigger dependency trees, the order is obvious. But in case of quite-a-lot-of-packages to install (like it happens e.g. in install_packages), apt can shuffle packages around (and does it even sometimes to resolve (pre-)dependendencies) as far as policy allows; and a 'Depends:' does only mean the packages listed here have to be unpacked and configured when this package is configured; this does not give any statement about the unpack order. A 'Pre-Depends:' assures the other package is already unpacked+configured when the installation of this package starts, i.e. before the preinst and unpack phases are started. BTW: in your example the alphabetical ordering came through the ordering in the Depends line... -- c u henning
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
