On Sun, 09 Nov 2008, Colin Watson wrote: > > > There is also: > > > The `Depends' field should also be used if the `postinst', > > > `prerm' or `postrm' scripts require the package to be present in > > > order to run. Note, however, that the `postrm' cannot rely on > > > any non-essential packages to be present during the `purge' > > > phase. > > > > Ack to change s/present/unpacked/g here too. > > I think this would be somewhat confusing. I know that the statement is > strictly logically correct with "unpacked", but it seems as though it > would imply to many readers that the package is *only* unpacked, not > also configured. In the absence of dependency loops, Depends should > guarantee that the depended-upon package is configured rather than > merely unpacked while the depending package's postinst runs; I'm not > sure about prerm and postrm.
It's true for the postinst/postrm (except purge) but not for the prerm upgrade (AFAIK) and we have recently been bitten by this distinction while discussing problems related to the perl 5.10 upgrade. > I feel that this may be too fine a distinction to draw in this paragraph > without being confusing, and it would be better left non-specific. Or maybe we should reword it to be more specific. Ccing Ian Jackson to have his input here. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
