On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 09:50:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Feb 14, 2009 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > I think this is another aspect of the same point above? My understanding > > from the discussion and the clarified text that Raphael sent is that > > postrm can always rely on the depended-on package being unpacked and > > configured and prerm can always rely on it at least being unpacked, even > > in the case of circular dependencies. > > As I understand it, the dependency is ignored so you can not rely on > anything you expect for a Depends in case of circular dependencies.
Policy says that the dependency can be broken at a packages not having a postinst script. Which seems to suggest that the other scripts can be run without problem. But as far as I know, that's only useful for the case of installing new packages. During an new install, or from conffiles only, without errors, unpack does: - preinst - unpack During an upgrade without errors, unpack does: - old-prerm - new-preinst - unpack - old-postrm During remove: - prerm - remove files - postrm The first case is the only simple case, and requires a Pre-Depends if you have a preinst script. For the others you have a problem with the order in which the packages are processed. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
