On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:44:30PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Adding lzma to dpkg's Pre-Depends"):
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 09:28:01PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > What advantage would we (as in Debian) have if dpkg pre-depends on lzma,
> > > instead of the packages pre-depending on lzma?> > If dpkg internalizes the lzma support (by static linking, dynamic linking, > > or depending on the lzma binary), and packages which use lzma pre-depend on > > the correct version of dpkg, then the pre-dependency on dpkg is transitional > > and can go away after a release cycle. > No, unless the dpkg.deb binary package were to actually _contain_ the > lzma code, dpkg would have to Pre-Depend on it forever (or it would > have to be made Essential). Dynamic linking or expecting to use the > lzma binary from another package would not suffice. "The pre-dependency on dpkg", not "the pre-dependency on lzma". > > What is fundamentally different about lzma that it should be handled > > differently than gzip and bzip2? > lzma is much more of a minority interest than gzip. We do not expect > ever to transition the entire archive to use gzip. The approach taken > with bzip2 was a mistake and should not be repeated. That's a new argument I haven't heard before. *Why* was it a mistake to do this the way it was done with bzip2? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
