On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:49:57PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 22:20:54 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > In addition a number of people on #-mentors suggested that a > > Pre-Dependency on dpkg shouldn't be too bad since dpkg should be > > upgraded early in any case. > > Sounds like a myth to me. Reference?
It may be a myth. "suggested" is no evidence, but more like a guess. I just listed it as an explanation for my reasoning. Since #-mentors is not a logged channel, I cannot provide a reference, besides desktop-base[1]. Maybe we can move to more technical grounds and find a suitable solution there? So initially the reason for the pre-dependency was #678902. The reason is that an old version of dpkg invokes the trigger before the conffile is present which results in the conffile not being listed in /etc/sgml/catalog. In my view there is no doubt of the RC-ness of this issue. So what would be your preferred resolution? 1) Add a pre-dependency on dpkg such that dpkg is already upgraded before deconfiguring sgml-base. This does not guarantee to solve the issue, because the old dpkg may still be running, but it makes it highly unlikely. 2) Fix dpkg to invoke all triggers when upgrading to the fixed version. I do not see this happening. 3) Work around this bug, by explicitly invoking the trigger in postinst at which time the conffile is guaranteed to be present. This kind of defeats the purpose of triggers. 4) Your solution? Helmut [1] http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/desktop-base/current/changelog#version7.0.0_exp1 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121008111307.ga6...@alf.mars
