Hello, On Tue 19 Mar 2024 at 01:02pm +01, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Package: debian-policy > Severity: wishlist > X-Debbugs-Cc: de...@lists.debian.org, debian-d...@lists.debian.org > > APT's installation planner does not consider dependencies of packages > being scheduled for removal, so a prerm must fail equally gracefully > as a postrm does in absence of its dependencies. > > This does break dpkg's assumptions which it happily tells you about, > but this is the reality we live in. > > So e.g. one thing you see is that apt removes libapt-pkg6.0, then > unpacks libapt-pkg6.0t64, then removes libapt-pkg6.0 reverse > dependencies. > > Clearly APT should be considering dependencies when removing packages > but even in that case, removals may sometimes need to be forced in the > wrong order because any order leads to broken dependencies, so still, > prerms should not rely on dependencies, but only on essential packages. I'm not sure that Policy is the place to discuss a change proposal like this, and we can't render a swathe of packages RC buggy by making such a change here. The archive would need to change first. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
