reassign 273093 debian-policy retitle 273093 policy: Document interactions of multiple clashing package diversions severity 273093 wishlist thanks
Hi! On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 22:25:58 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.10.23 > Severity: normal > Feel free to reassign this to debian-policy if you think this isn't > dpkg's fault... Doing this now. > If the two independent packages bar and baz both dpkg-divert the file > /usr/share/foo/bla/brm of package foo, only one of both can "get" the > diversion. And it will be the first package that can successfully > register the diversion, the second will just get > > Unpacking baz (from .../apt/archives/baz_1.0-3_all.deb) ... > Leaving `diversion of /usr/share/foo/bla/brm to /usr/share/foo/bla/brm.foo by > bar' > Setting up baz (1.0-3) ... > > and even when bar is removed, no record is made that baz wanted to add > it's own diversion. This sould only happen if both diversions are idential, which would be fine, but most commonly if two different packages divert a file then the --package argument will be different which will make dpkg-divert error out pointing out there's a clash with an existing diversion, and this has (supposedly) been this way since the initial dpkg-divert implementation. > This can lead to unpredictable behavior, because it's just a matter of > chance which package is installed first by a user. > > It seems there is no mention of the problem in policy (or the > developer's reference). It also seems I don't like the diversion > mechanism too much... Anyway, making this predictable and defined > seems ;-) to be difficult, both by implementing checks and registries > in dpkg, or by policy decisions. I have no proposal to make, > unfortunately. > > And while we're at it, and a copy goes to debian-policy@l.d.o, > > ,---- > | You should not use `dpkg-divert' on a file belonging to another > | package without consulting the maintainer of that package first. > `---- > > Not only that a warning about multiple diversions is missing here: > This should be noted down somewhere in the source package. There are > NMUs, packages are orphaned etc., and information like this can easily > be lost. I don't see anything to fix here in dpkg, this is how diversions work, that's just it. It could of course be documented more clearly in policy, and for example mention that different packages diverting the same file should Conflict with each other. thanks, guillem -- 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/20120718175251.ga21...@gaara.hadrons.org
