On 23 Jun 1998, Rob Browning wrote:
> Isn't it true that dpkg ignores the "Depends:" lines when ordering the
> configure scripts for these packages? If so, then the cvs-pcl
> configure step, if it goes first, would fail. So what's the solution?
No, it isn't. dpkg orders configure - it does not
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No; it ignores the dependencies when *unpacking* the packages but if
> foo depends on bar, dpkg will run bar's postinst before foo's. Try it
> and see.
OK, that makes sense. Then I suppose that the only place that the
dependency ordering is needed is in
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Isn't it true that dpkg ignores the "Depends:" lines when ordering
> the configure scripts for these packages?
No; it ignores the dependencies when *unpacking* the packages but if
foo depends on bar, dpkg will run bar's postinst before foo's. Try it
and
Though I think we've found that hamm can get by as is (as long as
cvs-pcl, hyperlatex, and elib change their package dependencies), it
seems likely that there may be cases in the future where we really do
have to account for inter add-on dependencies when ordering the add-on
install/remove scripts
4 matches
Mail list logo
