Re: self-depending packages

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:16:53PM +0100, Osamu Aoki wrote: > > > apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command line > > > length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place. > > > > > > This will be fixed once dpkg is librarified. > > > > Er, no, it won't. > > > > That part o

Re: self-depending packages

Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff. > Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff). It won't contain > higher-level anything. The active development seems to disagree with you... -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: self-depending packages

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 09:59 -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > Er, hardly. libdpkg will contain *extremely* low-level stuff. > Reading/writing debs(ar/tar/gzip/bzip/checksum stuff). > No, that's in libdeb (or libdpkg-deb, haven't quite decided the name of it, yet). If you'd bothered to pay any attentio

Re: self-depending packages

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Adam Heath > > | On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | > | > apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command > | > line length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place. > | > > | > This will be fixed once dpkg is librarif

Re: self-depending packages

On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 12:13 -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > * Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho > > > > | On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > | > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > | > > On 20050228T164806+0

Re: self-depending packages

On 20050301T195602+0100, Frank Küster wrote: > Well, but why should a self-dependency be ever necessary? A self-dependency is an oxymoron, since a package cannot be simultaneously unconfigured and configured. For that reason, a self-dependency is always a no-op (as I wrote earlier, it is harmless

Re: self-depending packages

On 20050301T144403+, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > >> apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command line > >> length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place. > > > I'

Re: self-depending packages

* Adam Heath | On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | | > apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command | > line length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place. | > | > This will be fixed once dpkg is librarified. | | Er, no, it won't. Please follow my mail-follow

Re: self-depending packages

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 12:13:56PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > * Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho > > > > | On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > | > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > | > > On 20050228T16

Re: self-depending packages

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > On 20050227T214242+0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: >> My understanding is that a self-depending package must be configured >> before it can be configured, which makes it unconfigurable, and hence >> uninstallable. And I think the same reasoning

Re: self-depending packages

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho > > | On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > | > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > | > > On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > | > > > Unfortunately apt breaks the c

Re: self-depending packages

Scripsit Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: >> apt invokes dpkg on the command line and due to maximum command line >> length it sometimes is split in an unfortunate place. > I'll repeat what I wrote above: > Doesn't apt usually unpack al

Re: self-depending packages

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:20:38PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > | > > Doesn't apt usually unpack all packages first and then configure them > > in > > | > > one run, so that shouldn't matter? > > | > > > | > dpkg does the same thing >

Re: self-depending packages

On 20050301T122452+0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | > > Doesn't apt usually unpack all packages first and then configure them in > | > > one run, so that shouldn't matter? > | > > | > dpkg does the same thing > | > | So how does apt break it but using dpkg doesn't? > > apt invokes dpkg on the co

Re: self-depending packages

* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho | On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote: | > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: | > > On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote: | > > > Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll | > > > work. If y

Re: self-depending packages

On 20050228T204520+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll > > > work. If you use apt it'll pick a random and un

Re: self-depending packages

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:49:41PM +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll > > work. If you use apt it'll pick a random and unpredictable starting > > point. > > Doesn't apt usually

Re: self-depending packages

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005, Frank Küster wrote: > What's the bug number? -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Neutral President: I have no strong feelings one way or the other." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? C

Re: self-depending packages

On 20050228T164806+, Andrew Suffield wrote: > Unfortunately apt breaks the code. If you use dpkg directly it'll > work. If you use apt it'll pick a random and unpredictable starting > point. Doesn't apt usually unpack all packages first and then configure them in one run, so that shouldn't mat

Re: self-depending packages

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:58:14AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > > Does it? The last time I was faced with that issue, the starting point > > chosen was random and unpredictable. > > It does. (I've hacked the code.) Unfortunatel

Re: self-depending packages

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 11:58:14AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > Does it? The last time I was faced with that issue, the starting point > chosen was random and unpredictable. It does. (I've hacked the code.) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROT

Re: self-depending packages

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 11:51:13 +0200, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dpkg tries to break the >cycle at the least problemous point, for example configuring a package >with no postinst first. Does it? The last time I was faced with that issue, the starting point chosen was random a

Re: self-depending packages

On 20050227T214242+0100, Nicolas Boullis wrote: > My understanding is that a self-depending package must be configured > before it can be configured, which makes it unconfigurable, and hence > uninstallable. And I think the same reasoning can be applied to > circular dependencies. But Loic disag

Re: self-depending packages

Nicolas Boullis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Trying to upgrade a woody system to sarge, I experienced problems > upgrading libgtk2.0-0, and discovered that this packages was > self-depending. Afetr forcing the upgrade with "dpkg -i --force-depends", > everything went smoothly. So I filed a bug

self-depending packages

Hi, Trying to upgrade a woody system to sarge, I experienced problems upgrading libgtk2.0-0, and discovered that this packages was self-depending. Afetr forcing the upgrade with "dpkg -i --force-depends", everything went smoothly. So I filed a bug against libgtk2.0-0. Then I discovered that I c