Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 21:57 -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>
>> What would be the impact on (c)debootstrap of changing the operation
>> of dpkg?
>>
> Forget the impact on debootstrap, the impact on APT and dselect is
> pretty huge. dpkg is designed to be able to unpack packages while their
> dependencies are not yet fulfilled.
>
> 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
>
> What William Ballard, Cameron Hutchinson and Eduard Bloch are asking for
> is to remove the difference between Depends and Pre-Depends and make all
> Depends behave like Pre-Depends.
But only for the "dpkg -i" operation. And they are not asking to
remove the difference but to move the depends check to be simulated
before the unpacking is done and prevent the unpacking if the later
configure will fail.
They ask for the following:
- take current state
- check if unpacking will work (pre-depends check)
- simulate unpacking (update internal states but don't unpack or
change status file)
- check if configure would work (depends/conflicts check)
- unpack
- maybe recheck if configure will work in case the simulation is unreliable
- configure
Would that be so hard to do?
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
