On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:49:08AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> FIXME: what if a line changes? Only allow certain changes? > > ... that's a rather large FIXME. Without fixing this, such an > > implementation of declarative diversions would be pointless churn. > > You should perhaps discuss this with Ian Jackson, there have already been > > rumblings from him about implementing declarative diversions. > The problem is that changes in --rename will be insane. > For example package A 1.0 has diverted /usr/bin/foo from package B > with --rename and ships /usr/bin/foo itself. > Now imagine package A 2.0 drops the --rename option. > A 1.0 postrm expects /usr/bin/foo to be from A 1.0. On the other hand > A 2.0 expects /usr/bin/foo to come from B in preinst while the actual > file is from A 1.0. So you have to move /usr/bin/foo to > /usr/bin/foo.dpkg-$RANDOM (to be able to abort-install), rename > /usr/bin/foo.B back to /usr/bin/foo and then run preinst. And in > case of errors you have to revert it all back. > Would anyone have a problem if dpkgs diversion handling would always > use --rename? Because if we eliminate that from being an option the > changes become easy. Er, I've for the life of me never understood why --rename is even an *option* to dpkg-divert. What does dpkg-divert do without it, and how is that useful? I don't think that the meaning of dpkg-divert (without --rename) should be changed, but I think that for declarative diversions, it makes sense to only support "rename". -- 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/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]