Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 06:48:22PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>> > "We might some day later change the way apt works for upgrades" is not an
>> > argument for adding a pre-dependency now.
>
>> But that we do want to prevent a broken APT -- when using the common
>> "dpkg -i ...; apt-get install -f" idiom (where ... is APT) -- certainly
>> is an argument.
I have to +1 this. "apt-get install -f" is frequently used to recover
from a broken upgrade. So it would be better if apt-get keeps working.
> Yeah. I don't strongly disagree with this argument, but I also don't find
> it particularly persuasive. apt already treats apt as special, I don't
> think it's very consistent to ask dpkg and other front ends to also treat
> apt specially (by way of Pre-Depends).
If apt already treats apt special then why not just have apt treat the
depends of apt as pre-depends? That way apt would first invoke dpkg with
all the pre-depends of apt and then later with apt itself ensuring the
order you wanted.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762ptvzy3.fsf@frosties.localnet
