Hello,
On Tue 19 Mar 2024 at 01:02pm +01, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: de...@lists.debian.org, debian-d...@lists.debian.org
>
> APT's installation planner does not consider dependencies of packages
> being scheduled for removal, so a prerm must fail equally gracefully
> as a postrm does in absence of its dependencies.
>
> This does break dpkg's assumptions which it happily tells you about,
> but this is the reality we live in.
>
> So e.g. one thing you see is that apt removes libapt-pkg6.0, then
> unpacks libapt-pkg6.0t64, then removes libapt-pkg6.0 reverse
> dependencies.
>
> Clearly APT should be considering dependencies when removing packages
> but even in that case, removals may sometimes need to be forced in the
> wrong order because any order leads to broken dependencies, so still,
> prerms should not rely on dependencies, but only on essential packages.
I'm not sure that Policy is the place to discuss a change proposal like
this, and we can't render a swathe of packages RC buggy by making such a
change here. The archive would need to change first.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
