[wpkg-users] Priority vs Dependancy -- Order of Installation

[Twan Fox]

That makes some logical sense, but at the same time, I have to ask this. Is
that the way it should be? Logically, when one says 'depends on', they don't
usually mean 'depends on, if the priority is higher'. Or, stated another
way, it seems silly to depend on a secondary attribute to define proper
package order in regards to dependancies when it can very easily be
manipulated (by the unknowing or the foolish) into the reverse order.

Perhaps, if priority is still to be the defining factor of install order,
wpkg can log a warning that "dependancy of <package x> set to install after
<package y> based on priority" or perhaps a configured setting that will
automatically kick down packages dependant on others to a lower priority by
default (dependancy priority - 1) regardless of what the package's priority
is. This would eliminate the potential to misconfigure things.

Thoughts?

Twanfox


On 11/5/07, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo at wpkg.org> wrote:
>
> Dr. Frank Lee schrieb:
> > <installing MS bugfixes>
> >
> >> I understand that higher priority packages are going to install first.
> I
> >> know that, if one package/profile depends on another, that the other
> >> package/profile will get installed as well, but does that imply the
> >> dependancy will be installed first regardless of priority? In some
> cases, I
> >> could see that as being a requirement. Software B requires Software A
> to be
> >> installed first to register properly, but due to them being set at the
> same
> >> priority, B installs first, then A, missing the required configuration
> >> steps.
> >
> >> How does WPKG handle dependancies and how does it deal with order of
> >> installation? If this is already answered in a FAQ somewhere, I
> apologize
> >> for not having searched there first. I haven't had the luxury of time
> to
> >> disect the code to read my answer directly.
> >
> > (I'm replying 'cos I think I contributed the start of the 'dependancy'
> > code...)
> >
> > The 'dependancy' just adds the packages to the list, which is then
> > installed in order of priority. If 'foo' depends on 'bar' being present
> > for 'foo' to install properly, 'bar' ought to have a higher priority
> than
> > 'foo'.
> >
> > In the example above, B should be set at a higher priority than A for
> > success. (I usually have 900-999 as the priority for OS patches, 700-799
> > for antivirus etc, 500-599 for 'mission critical' applications, 300-399
> > for useful things and 100-199 for end-user things like office. Even
> > numbered centuries are 'reserved for future expansion'...)
>

wpkg-users mailing list
wpkg-users at lists.wpkg.org
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users