FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian dpkg

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-03-2011, 06:57 AM
Raphael Hertzog
 
Default Semantic change for dpkg triggers?

Hi,

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 ▶ 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
 
Old 06-03-2011, 05:21 PM
Phillip Susi
 
Default 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
 
Old 06-03-2011, 05:21 PM
Phillip Susi
 
Default 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
 
Old 06-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Steve Langasek
 
Default 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
 
Old 06-03-2011, 05:44 PM
Steve Langasek
 
Default 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org