On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 18:28 +0000, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > What's interesting is nobody has jumped in on this thread to point out > > that dpkg *has* a dependency field for forcing checking of dependencies > > before the package is unpacked. > > Pre-Depends > > As far as I read the thread, this is not exactly what is being asked. > > My immediate thought, too, is that it would be sensible for dpkg to > start by checking whether all dependencies of the packages it is being > asked to install *will* be available after everything is finished, > dpkg is designed so you don't need to do this.
> I can certainly accept and anticipate the objection that "that would > be difficult to implement, and nobody has cared to", but I still don't > see why such a behavior would be *wrong*, per se. > It's breaking elegance to fix something I'm not convinced is a problem. All of the examples given so far are bogus, there simply isn't a situation I can see where upgrading a package would prevent you from being able to get its dependencies and install them afterwards. And a far better solution to the "a package on disk needs dependencies" solution is for a command-line tool that can grab the dependencies a package needs, not just bitch about them not existing. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
