On 11/1/05, Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 06:56:44PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > > In my opinion this is not a bug (except if the package is crucial for > > the system to work and be reachable, like ssh) - the local admin simply > > has to review the changes to conffiles that dpkg requested, and have a > > look at NEWS.Debian and changelog.Debian. If these files do not contain > > enough information to fix the system, then this is a bug, right? But > > the simple fact that a postinst script fails because a change has been > > refused isn't - and for sure it is not a serious or grave bug, > > severities often used when a postinst fails. > > > > Opinions? > > There is one big problem with that scenario that I haven't seen > mentioned in this thread yet: If I make the dist-upgrade of a machine > from sarge to etch and the dist-upgrade fails right in the middle > of the installed 3000 packages I will be severly disappointed to > say the least if that didn't happen for a very good reason... > That's a fact that often gets lost when discussing such problem from > developer to developer that install sid on their machines and update > about 30 packages at once. > > So if it is at all possible to avoid failing the postinst (which of > course also means to not break other packages installation as you > have pointed out) it should be done.
Wouldn't it be better to improve apt so it doesn't abort if a single package fails? It should still be able to continue with independent packages.