Hi, Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 16:40 +0300 schrieb Kari Pahula: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:21:44PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > Kaol, can you comment on the ghc-pkg behaviour? Is "--force" the right > > thing to do, or is there an alternative? > > Did you try --no-user-package-conf yet?
Ah, that’s the option. I knew I saw something like that. I’s not mentioned by ghc-pkg(1), though. That would be better than force, if it works, I’d say. > Other than that, something > like "HOME=/ ghc-pkg ..." should work, even if that's an ugly hack. > > I'm not sure if ignoring ghc-pkg unregister's error or using --force > is that good an idea. There's global user installed Cabal packages to > consider (inadvisable as those may be). I'd rather expect users to > unregister those first by themselves with ghc-pkg. After all, they're > there because they installed them by themselves with ghc-pkg, in the > first place. Note that we had some severe problems about a year ago when prerm _did_ fail when ghc-pkg failed: When something was broken inside the Debian packages somewhere, people will have huge problems getting rid of them – including the buildds. Therefore, I think we do not have to abort a package removal if it breaks site-install packages. Additional rationale: If the user builds a binary from source himself, or writes a perl script, nothing stops dpkg from removing their dependencies either. It’s the responsibility of the admin not to touch the dependencies (or use equivs or such). Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
