On Wednesday 12 January 2005 12:37 pm, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:26 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:52 am, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > It's breaking elegance to fix something I'm not convinced is a problem. > > > > Just to be clear: you mean the elegance of the dpkg code, not its > > external behavior, right? Because I don't see anything elegant about > > erroring out and leaving an operation half-completed. > > Why not? It means that you just need to go fetch and install the > dependency, you don't need to try and install the depending package > again.
Well, you're also leaving the package in a broken and unconfigured state. Doing this in order to save the user a little typing later (adding the original package to the second --install line) seems to me like a hack to make some use cases slightly more convenient, not elegance. Daniel -- /------------------- Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------\ | "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over | | public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." | | -- Richard Feynmann | \--- Be like the kid in the movie! Play chess! -- http://www.uschess.org --/
pgp5GnMO1s1W2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
