Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote: > On Thursday 08 April 2010 15:52:19 Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Hmm, sounds like a bug in policy. I think disappeared packages ought >> to receive prerm. Would you like to raise the issue, or should I? > > Disappeared packages do not receive prerm because of complicated dpkg logic > behind it (KISS, KISS...), by the time of dpkg decides that package will > disappear the files of the package may be deleted already. Given that I > suppose > that this behavior is intentional. Ah, so the problem is that if prerm errors out there is no way to cancel the removal? And if I understand correctly, you are suggesting to run prerm before unpacking the replacing package to fix this. For what it’s worth, what I was thinking of before was to run prerm but resign to ignoring errors from it. Your idea is interesting; I will think about it. >> It would be better if the package manager could say ‘the oldpkg >> package will renamed by this upgrade; its new name is newpkg’. >> Unfortunately, in the current control file format, I don’t know a way >> to express that. Maybe debtags can help (role::dummy). > > I would argue that package manager should not consider debtags as a source of > critical control information. Of course --- I only meant for the sake of displaying what is about to happen, not controlling the package manager’s behavior. Still, the suggestion was ugly, and I am happy to discard it. I have to go now, but I can return to this topic tonight. Thanks for the food for thought. Ciao, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100408134357.ga31...@progeny.tock
