On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:42:49AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:19AM +0100, Henning Glawe wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:17:38AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > > > One things, if I've understood things correctly, is that it is not > > > possible to reliably know how they're going to be removed -- dpkg will > > > break the circle in a random place and this may or may not result in
> > the problems occur when apt processes "long" lists of packages, and more > > specifically in the 'configure' stage. > > dpkg has only partly to do with this; the problem is in APT and the way it > > controls dpkg: due to a limited command line length, apt can only call dpkg > > with a certain number of packages on the same time. > > dpkg can handle circular dependencies fine as long as both 'ends' are fed in > > at the same time. > > but, at least the last time I checked the apt source, apt doesn't check > > for this condition when splitting the to-be-configured list and passing > > these > > chunks to dpkg. > Shouldn't apt be fixed rather than changing other packages, then? What does "fixed" mean here? The behavior of circular dependencies is undefined in policy, and must be so, because two packages cannot (in this universe) each be configured before the other. If you can solve this problem, then it makes sense to talk about "fixing" apt instead of fixing the packages, but not before then. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
