Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> More usefull is probably a new type 'needs <foo> to run but can be
> configured without'. The effect would be just like Depends except
> that cycles can be safely broken at that point.
For symmetry you might want to call the dependency you describe
'Post-Depends'.
X Pre-Depends: Y = X unpack needs Y config'ed
X Depends: Y = X config needs Y config'ed
X Post-Pepends: Y = X run needs Y config'ed
To break a cyclical Dependency, one of the Depends in the cycle could
be weakened to a Post-Depends; then dpkg would know to configure the
Depended-upon package before configuring the other (merely
Post-Depended-upon) package.
I agree that mutual dependencies can be appropriate when two packages
work closely together. An example is a program that consists of both
binaries and scripts which run one another in complex ways and the
scripts and data have been split off into a separate Arch: all package.
--
Thomas Hood
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
