Russ Allbery wrote: >>> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:27:44PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>>> Except *new* dependencies of an upgraded pre-depedency may not be >>>> present. This is part of the philosophy behind pseudo-essential >>>> packages generally using pre-depends for one release when they >>>> acquire new dependencies. [...] > Isn't this the thing that Steve said he considered to be a bug in dpkg, > not in Policy? In other words, are we sure that we want to document this, > particularly since people tend not to know if their packages might be used > in Pre-Depends? Hmm. This behavior is very much by design, so it is hard for me to call it a bug. It makes upgrades much simpler. Note that it does not affect pre-depends in general. A lot of the time, pre-depends is just used to avoid unpack conflicts. So this is about preinst only, which basically means (based on a quick search) pseudo-essential packages and debconf. I would like to document it to avoid bugs. I would not mind it being documented as “arguably a bug in dpkg”, similarly to the existing note on Replaces. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100815234730.gc3...@burratino
