On 2018-05-01 16:33, Steven Penny wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2018 13:44:45, JonY wrote:
What is the actual problem you are facing?
i already described it: when 2 things depend on each other in this way,
that is
an error:
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_dependency
Nowhere does this page substantiate what you're saying; it doesn't say
that the existence of a circular dependency is /ipso facto/ a form of
error.
If A cannot be used unless B is also installed, and if B cannot be used
unless A is also installed, then there is a cycle in the dependency
graph. The packaging system must express the cycle (and handle it). This
means that if a user selects A for installation, it must be
automatically accompanied by an installation of B, and vice versa.
If you say that the dependency which is stated in the package system is
incorrect, then you have to prove that either A or B can be usefully
installed by itself. (Or even both, in which case they are independent.)
If the circular dependency is right, but unwanted, it can only be broken
by making some code changes in A or B, or both (and only then changing
the dependency expressions at the package level). You can't simply say,
"I don't like circular dependencies; I will break any cycles in the
package system dependency definitions, whether or not they reflect the
underlying packages".
The only situation in which that would be justified would be that the
package system is too weak to deal with circular dependencies; it gets
into an infinite loop or whatever, so cycles must be avoided.
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
