On Sun, 14 Sep 1997, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > it is inherently dangerous that a package depend on perl because of
> > > modules required in installation scripts. I think we should forbit
> > > this.
> > > We should limit our perl code in installation script to perl-base OR
> > > include the module required in the DEBIAN directory (so it will go
> > > in /var/lib/dpkg/info). There should be a strong reason to do the
> > > latter.
> >
> > What's the problem with it?
> >
>
> During installation, de-installation and wind-up, no package can be sure
> if some part of it has been installed in the file system, except for the
> Essential things, so an installation script should not depend on
> something included in itself [1], or in other package on which it
> doesn't pre-depend, and so the module needed should go in the DEBIAN
> dir, and be moved by dpkg to /var/lib/dpkg/info/<pkg>.xxx . As it would
> be a duplication (the module is probably installed in /usr by some
> package) then there should be strong reasons to do so, and not as
> maintainer's will.
I still don't understand the reason (is this just me? how do the others
think about this?). If a package installs /usr/bin/foo, why can't this
program be used in the "postinst" script?
Thanks for answering my silly questions,
Chris
-- Christian Schwarz
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian is looking [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for a logo! Have a
look at our drafts PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
at http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/
