On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 01:08:12AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Anthony> FWIW, I don't think forcing all packages to have postinst's > Anthony> and prerm's for the rest of eternity to be a particularly > Anthony> good solution either. > You don't need it for the rest of eternity. We create the > postinst, prerm now, installing the symlink, Once the move is over, > we just have a script removing teh symlink. another release, > (potato+2), we stop bothering, since we would have handled the most > common case (and provide an upgrade script removing teh symlinks for > upgrades at that point).
Oh.
So potato packages should have: (effectively)
postinst install:
if [ -d /usr/doc ]; then
if [ ! -e /usr/doc/$package -a -d /usr/share/doc/$package ]; then
ln -s /usr/share/doc/$package /usr/doc/$package
fi
fi
prerm remove:
if [ -d /usr/doc ]; then
if [ -L /usr/doc/$pakage ]; then
rm -f /usr/doc/$foo
fi
fi
This remains for woody (potato+1) at which point we file important bugs
and remove packages that haven't been updated.
Then for woody+1 we let people drop the scripts whenever they feel
like. Crufty symlinks get removed when everyone updates to a new
base-files that rm's symlinks from within /usr/doc in its postinst on
upgrade, or something similar.
Thus, partial upgrades to potato and woody have a complete /usr/doc,
and full upgrades to woody have a complete /usr/share, and symlinks
throughout /usr/doc. Partial upgrades to anything beyond woody might
have old files left in /usr/doc, but they'll get moved when whoever
finally gets around to run an apt-get dist-upgrade.
Anyway, I'm quoting Marcus Brinkmann from
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But the real expense is elsewhere. I wonder why this hasn't come up before,
> but here it is:
> [...]
> 2. The prerm/postrm script must never go again, because we handle smooth
> upgrades even if you jump a version number. Otherwise, you will end up with
> a crufty symlink.
> [...]
> ~2000 new prerm/postrm scripts that must never go, even after the
> transition period.
So this is definitely incorrect, yes?
Both Marcus' and Gordon Matzigkeit's objections seem to be based on this,
btw. I'm not sure if Steve Greenland's post counted as a formal objection,
but it was in response to that too.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``There's nothing worse than people with a clue.
They're always disagreeing with you.''
-- Andrew Over
pgp6R8BmoGeXy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
