Raphael Hertzog <hert...@debian.org> writes: > Please find a proposed patch in attachment. Feel free to reword/improve > if needed.
Is the reason why you can't rely on configured for the prerm case the same reason why you can't rely on it for the postinst case: because of breaking circular dependencies and choosing one package to deconfigure first? It just seems conceptually odd to use Pre-Depends for a dependency for a removal script. I'm a little concerned that this sounds like an implicit encouragement to use Pre-Depends more because you can rely on it, and I don't think we want to do that. I'm not entirely sure how to avoid that, though, and in context there are other warnings against using Pre-Depends. What we really want to do is actively discourage circular dependencies, since in the absence of circular dependencies, Depends works as expected and you can rely on packages being configured for postinst and prerm dependencies. What happens if there are circular Pre-Depends? Does dpkg just give up at that point and throw a fatal error? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
