On Thu, 02 Jun 2011, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If a new behaviour is needed, it should have a new name. Otherwise
> you break existing packages.
I know this. This is precisely why I'm asking the question of which
packages require this behaviour. If none or very few require it, I might
consider doing the change with the current name and provide new names
for the old behaviour.
Just for reference, if you review my patch at
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=users/hertzog/dpkg.git;a=commitdiff;h=c98b69d76f78114afd344b9dc0 aef47c6f3fe00b
...
> So I would suggest:
>
> * New trigger directive "trigger-noawait", works like
> dpkg-trigger --no-await
...you will notice this is called "activate-noawait"
> But we do also need a way to do this for file triggers:
>
> * New trigger directive "interest-filenoawait" which has the
> following semantics:
> - when triggered explicitly by name by a triggering package,
> the triggering package awaits the trigger unless the
> triggering package specifies --no-await
> - when triggered implicitly by installation of a file, the
> triggering package does not await the trigger
this is called "interest-noawait" except that I have made no difference
when the file trigger is explicitly called by dpkg-trigger. I don't see a
good reason for this.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Follow my Debian News â–¶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English)
▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110603065709.GI13100@rivendell.home.ouaza.com">h ttp://lists.debian.org/20110603065709.GI13100@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
06-03-2011, 05:21 PM
Phillip Susi
Semantic change for dpkg triggers?
On 6/2/2011 8:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In general, the reason for this rule about satisfying dependencies is
that a triggering package may well not be functional at all until the
trigger is run. For example, if the triggering package T needs to be
registered with the interested package I, a package D which depends on
T may find that T does not work - and D's postinst may fail due to T
being broken.
If postinst depends on the package, then it should be a pre-depend, not
a depend, shouldn't it?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4DE91824.4030405@cfl.rr.com">http://lists.debian.org/4DE91824.4030405@cfl.rr.com
06-03-2011, 05:21 PM
Phillip Susi
Semantic change for dpkg triggers?
On 6/2/2011 8:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
In general, the reason for this rule about satisfying dependencies is
that a triggering package may well not be functional at all until the
trigger is run. For example, if the triggering package T needs to be
registered with the interested package I, a package D which depends on
T may find that T does not work - and D's postinst may fail due to T
being broken.
If postinst depends on the package, then it should be a pre-depend, not
a depend, shouldn't it?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4DE91824.4030405@cfl.rr.com">http://lists.debian.org/4DE91824.4030405@cfl.rr.com
06-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Steve Langasek
Semantic change for dpkg triggers?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 8:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >In general, the reason for this rule about satisfying dependencies is
> >that a triggering package may well not be functional at all until the
> >trigger is run. For example, if the triggering package T needs to be
> >registered with the interested package I, a package D which depends on
> >T may find that T does not work - and D's postinst may fail due to T
> >being broken.
> If postinst depends on the package, then it should be a pre-depend,
> not a depend, shouldn't it?
Absolutely not.
--
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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
06-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Steve Langasek
Semantic change for dpkg triggers?
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 6/2/2011 8:33 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >In general, the reason for this rule about satisfying dependencies is
> >that a triggering package may well not be functional at all until the
> >trigger is run. For example, if the triggering package T needs to be
> >registered with the interested package I, a package D which depends on
> >T may find that T does not work - and D's postinst may fail due to T
> >being broken.
> If postinst depends on the package, then it should be a pre-depend,
> not a depend, shouldn't it?
Absolutely not.
--
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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Semantic change for dpkg triggers?
