Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Also how would a package inset such a Post-Invoke line into the
>> conffig? Modifying the conffile would be a policy violation.
>
> The package that provides the hook to run provides the config entry; the
> packages that need to run the hook touch a file in /var/<whatever> or
> append a line to such a file.
That means that every such case has to reinvent the wheel.
Also you still haven't gotten the hook into the Post-Invoke apt
option.
>>> The big problem with that is that if such a command ever fails, how does
>>> the package system know which package caused the error? It could be the
>>> one that first registered the call, but also an other package that would
>>> have added it to the journal if it hadn't been there yet.
>>
>> Probably all of them instead of just one.
>>
>> I don't see this as a big problem. Currently if one of the packages
>> adds broken files causing the update script to fail on average half
>> the packages will be broken (everything after the broken one).
>>
>> So having them all set to failed is just twice as bad from a statistic
>> point of view and doesn't create any extra work.
>
> You forget the extra work of the user (and the admin of the wrongly
> blamed package) to find out which package is responsible. With the
> current setup, you just need to look at dpkg's output and check which
> package was first to fail.
Ok. If the error message sucks and doesn't reveal the culprit then you
have a point.
> Regards, Frank
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
