Re: Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 10:25:39PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: AJ's requirement is fractionally stricter than policy's, but packages on which other packages pre-depend should be playing it safe anyway. I think that very much the same kind of care is needed to satisfy AJ's requirement and to satisfy policy. Perhaps. But there _is_ a difference between the two and it turns out to be important in the case I am investigating. I will follow policy instead of the summary. Uh, no. Follow the behaviour of the tools, then the sarge rc bug policy, then the debian-policy document. Which case is this? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgphM8QJfYWi9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
On http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt AJT writes: Essential packages must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. Packages listed in Pre-Depends: must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. I can find the basis for the first stanza in the Debian policy manual but I can find no basis for the second as it is currently phrased. The relevant section in the policy manual is this (from section 7.2): When a package declaring a pre-dependency is about to be _unpacked_ the pre-dependency can be satisfied if the depended-on package is either fully configured, _or even if_ the depended-on package(s) are only unpacked or half-configured, provided that they have been configured correctly at some point in the past (and not removed or partially removed since). In this case, both the previously-configured and currently unpacked or half-configured versions must satisfy any version clause in the `Pre-Depends' field. It looks to me as if the second paragraph I quoted from sarge_rc_policy.txt should be rephrased so that it expresses the same requirement as policy does. Or am I missing something? -- Thomas Hood
Re: Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Thomas Hood wrote: On http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt AJT writes: Essential packages must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. Packages listed in Pre-Depends: must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. s/not installed/not fully configured/ ? I can find the basis for the first stanza in the Debian policy manual but I can find no basis for the second as it is currently phrased. The relevant section in the policy manual is this (from section 7.2): When a package declaring a pre-dependency is about to be _unpacked_ the pre-dependency can be satisfied if the depended-on package is either fully configured, _or even if_ the depended-on package(s) are only unpacked or half-configured, provided that they have been configured correctly at some point in the past (and not removed or partially removed since). In this case, both the previously-configured and currently unpacked or half-configured versions must satisfy any version clause in the `Pre-Depends' field. It looks to me as if the second paragraph I quoted from sarge_rc_policy.txt should be rephrased so that it expresses the same requirement as policy does. Or am I missing something? Does the word adequately not summarizes pretty much the long version in policy?
Re: Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
[quotation from sarge_rc_policy.txt:] Packages listed in Pre-Depends: must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. [quotation from policy:] When a package declaring a pre-dependency is about to be _unpacked_ the pre-dependency can be satisfied if the depended-on package is either fully configured, _or even if_ the depended-on package(s) are only unpacked or half-configured, provided that they have been configured correctly at some point in the past (and not removed or partially removed since). In this case, both the previously-configured and currently unpacked or half-configured versions must satisfy any version clause in the `Pre-Depends' field. On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 14:06, Santiago Vila wrote in debian-devel: Does the word adequately not summarizes pretty much the long version in policy? The sarge_rc_policy text doesn't summarize the policy text. Policy doesn't impose any special requirements on a pre-depended-on package; policy imposes a requirement on dpkg, telling it that it may only install the pre-depending package if the pre-depended-on package has already been unpacked and configured. (The point of this requirement is to provide a mechanism whereby a package can require another package to be configured before the first's preinst and unpack happens.) The sarge_rc_policy text does impose a special requirement on a pre-depended-on package: it says that the pre-depended-on package must be functional even when not configured. AJT has written the following in explanation of the sarge_rc_policy text: Apt (generally) guarantees pre-dep'ed packages are configured before unpacking, but dpkg doesn't. Consider (if you were around in those days) the Unpack/Configure/Configure/Configure/Configure cycles we used to go through with dpkg. But we don't require Debian users to use apt. So it seems that the sarge_rc_policy requirement is additional to policy and is intended to deal with a shortcoming in dpkg. Please correct me if I am wrong. -- Thomas Hood
Re: Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 07:11:13PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: [quotation from sarge_rc_policy.txt:] Packages listed in Pre-Depends: must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. [quotation from policy:] When a package declaring a pre-dependency is about to be _unpacked_ the pre-dependency can be satisfied if the depended-on package is either fully configured, _or even if_ the depended-on package(s) are only unpacked or half-configured, provided that they have been configured correctly at some point in the past (and not removed or partially removed since). In this case, both the previously-configured and currently unpacked or half-configured versions must satisfy any version clause in the `Pre-Depends' field. On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 14:06, Santiago Vila wrote in debian-devel: Does the word adequately not summarizes pretty much the long version in policy? The sarge_rc_policy text doesn't summarize the policy text. Policy doesn't impose any special requirements on a pre-depended-on package; policy imposes a requirement on dpkg, telling it that it may only install the pre-depending package if the pre-depended-on package has already been unpacked and configured. I think your summary of policy is inaccurate. The pre-depended-on package doesn't have to be configured; it merely has to have been configured at some point in the past. Thus, pre-depended-on packages have to be prepared to be functional in the most common case of being unpacked but not configured (if we assume that packages are upgraded more often than they're installed, which seems rather likely to me). This is a requirement imposed by policy on pre-depended-on packages. AJ's requirement is fractionally stricter than policy's, but packages on which other packages pre-depend should be playing it safe anyway. I think that very much the same kind of care is needed to satisfy AJ's requirement and to satisfy policy. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 01:54:02PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: Packages listed in Pre-Depends: must be (adequately) functional when unpacked but not installed. I can find the basis for the first stanza in the Debian policy manual but I can find no basis for the second as it is currently phrased. *shrug* It's the way the tools work. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Is this some kind of psych test? Am I getting paid for this?'' pgp51J6TiZ5ro.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Pre-Depends according to sarge_rc_policy.txt
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 19:33, Colin Watson wrote: The pre-depended-on package doesn't have to be configured; it merely has to have been configured at some point in the past. Thus, pre-depended-on packages have to be prepared to be functional in the most common case of being unpacked but not configured (if we assume that packages are upgraded more often than they're installed, which seems rather likely to me). This is a requirement imposed by policy on pre-depended-on packages. Policy doesn't say that it is a bug for a pre-depended-on package to fail to function before being configured. It could just as easily be interpreted as saying that it is a bug for package preinst and unpack to rely on packages that fail to function before they are configured. AJ's requirement is fractionally stricter than policy's, but packages on which other packages pre-depend should be playing it safe anyway. I think that very much the same kind of care is needed to satisfy AJ's requirement and to satisfy policy. Perhaps. But there _is_ a difference between the two and it turns out to be important in the case I am investigating. I will follow policy instead of the summary. -- Thomas
