On Thu, Dec 31, 1998 at 02:21:50PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Le Thu, Dec 31, 1998 at 09:50:26AM +1100, Chris Leishman écrivait: > > Hi all, > > [...] > > > Is there a problem with this sort of approach? > > I've already proposed something similar in debian-policy : > http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-policy-9811/msg00091.html > > The only problem that is difficult to solve is the backward > compatibility of {pre,post}inst script. They should run on systems that do > not have dcfg* utilities. Of course, we could make package depend on > dcfg but I don't see the need of adding a dependence to hundreds > of packages...
Ahh...well I was proposing that we do add the dependancy... I can't really see any nice way around it - and thats what the dependancy system is for really. Perhaps we could have a sudo dependancy - if a package uses a configuration system with pre-configures, etc, then the dcfg utilities need to be on the system. Alternatively we just add the dcfg utilities to the standard dpkg package and force all new pacakges to use the new version of dpkg (which is the same as modifiying dpkg, which alot of proposals have required). > > I also proposed the presence of a pre-configure script in > order to fill in the database before the installation. > > Happy new year ! Happy new year to you too. Chris -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- REALITY.SYS corrupted: Reboot universe? (Y/N/Q) ....Debian GNU/Linux ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reply with subject 'request key' for PGP public key. KeyID 0xA9E087D5
