On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:25:19PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Does dpkg provide any guarantee that the dependencies of the
> > pre-dependency are also present at this point? If it doesn't, I think
> > that should be considered a bug in dpkg, since you may be invoking a
> > command that links a
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> this
> is about preinst only, which basically means (based on a quick search)
> pseudo-essential packages and debconf.
Hmm, and python-ure.
Maybe we should treat all dependencies of a pre-dependency as
pre-dep
Forosh Vpn ba gheymat monaseb va server haye Usa va Nl
Jahate daryafte account test be addresss zir email konid
email : Alborz33 @ gmail.com
1 Mahe (Usa , Nl) 3500 Toman .
3 Mahe (Usa , Nl) 9500 Toman .
6 Mahe (Usa , Nl) 17000 Toman .
12 Mahe (Usa , Nl) 29000 Toman .
jahate daryafte shomare kart
Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:27:44PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Except *new* dependencies of an upgraded pre-depedency may not be
present. This is part of the philosophy behind pseudo-essential
packages generally using pre-depends for one release when they
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:27:44PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>>> Except *new* dependencies of an upgraded pre-depedency may not be
>>> present. This is part of the philosophy behind pseudo-essential
>>> packages generally using pre-depends f
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:27:44PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Except *new* dependencies of an upgraded pre-depedency may not be
>> present. This is part of the philosophy behind pseudo-essential
>> packages generally using p
Based on Steve’s explanation:
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> The Depends field should also be used if the
> postinst or prerm scripts
> require the depended-on package to be unpacked or
> configured in order to run, or if the dependend
Steve Langasek wrote:
> This is an obsolete example, doc-base now uses a trigger as it ought to and
> the install-docs command is now a no-op (+ a warning message) when called
> from a maintainer script. :-)
>
> Do you have an example of using Suggests: in this way that *shouldn't* be
> converted
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 03:24:59PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > As Steve pointed out, this is generally going to be a no-op, since if
> > you're cleaning something up in postrm, you probably already depended on
> > it because you're using it in postinst.
> Example where it is not a no-op: doc
Hi Jonathan,
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 07:27:44PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Does dpkg provide any guarantee that the dependencies of the pre-dependency
> > are also present at this point?
> Sure: that is part of what it means to configure a package.
> Except *new* dependencies of an upgrad
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 02:57:18PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> > How about this?
> >
> >
> > The Depends field should also be used if the
> > postinst or prerm scripts
> > require the depended-on package to be unpacked or
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> My real question was: does this ever happen in the real world?
>
>> - doc-base already removes any remaining state when *it* is purged
>> - debconf does not, but that is a bug. In practice, debconf is
>>almost never uninstalled.
>
>> My worr
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> All right, Recommends then. :)
> My real question was: does this ever happen in the real world?
> - doc-base already removes any remaining state when *it* is purged
> - debconf does not, but that is a bug. In practice, debconf is
>almost never uninstalled.
> My
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder writes:
>> Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> The Depends field should also be used if
[...]
>>> the dependend-on package
>>> is desirable for cleanup done by postrm.
>
>> I guess I am confused; when
Jonathan Nieder writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> How about this?
>>
>>
>> The Depends field should also be used if the
>> postinst or prerm scripts
>> require the depended-on package to be unpacked or
>> configured in order to run,
Russ Allbery wrote:
> How about this?
>
>
> The Depends field should also be used if the
> postinst or prerm scripts
> require the depended-on package to be unpacked or
> configured in order to run, or if the dependend-on packag
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes:
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> >>
> >> The DEBIAN directory will not appear in the
> >> file system archive of the package, and so won't be installed
> >> -by dpkg when the package is installed.
Here's the new version of the patch.
diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
index 0624290..8a70ebf 100644
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -1104,10 +1104,10 @@
- Sometimes, a package requires another package to be installed
- and configured before it can b
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 01:52:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> + Sometimes, a package requires another package to be unpacked
>> + and configured before it can be unpacked. In this
>> + case, the dependent package must specify this dependency in
>> +
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>>The DEBIAN directory will not appear in the
>>file system archive of the package, and so won't be installed
>> - by dpkg when the package is installed.
>> + by dpkg when the package is unpacked
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 10:45:38AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Good point. Here's updated proposed wording.
> diff --git a/perl-policy.sgml b/perl-policy.sgml
> index 3b76b94..03e5dfb 100644
> --- a/perl-policy.sgml
> +++ b/perl-policy.sgml
> @@ -128,17 +128,27 @@
>
> Module Path
21 matches
Mail list logo
