Once upon a time Scott James Remnant said... > On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote: > > > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0 > > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0 > > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the > > installation of foo-modules_2.0 > > > This is incorrect. > > dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
Ok. If we change the above sequence to: dpkg unpacks the data contents (data.tar.gz) of foo-modules_2.0 into their final location in the filesystem (possibly overwriting the contents of the package being replaced) dpkg then checks dependencies of foo-modules_2.0 dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the installation of foo-modules_2.0 Is this correct? I gather it is from what you have elaborated further on in the thread. Would it not make sense to change the order of the first two items in the list? I think the reversed order is correct and the current order is not - but that's based only on my limited understanding. Is there a reason that the data.tar.gz needs to be unpacked before the dependencies are checked to see if the package can be installed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
