On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:26:26AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 ? 01:49 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a ?crit : > > > At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with > > > a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular > > > dependency. Until now, all circular dependencies cases I have met were > > > fixable. At first, some of them looked necessary and they required quite > > > some work, but they were fixable. > > > > You know when you're adding a pre-depends. You're typing the word > > "Pre-Depends" in a debian/control file. > > > > You don't know when you're introducing a circular depends that easily, > > and it could be either of the packages in the circle that shouldn't have > > such a depends, not necessarily the last one that closed the circle > > should change. > > Sure, and I agree Bill's checks should go on. However, looking at the > list, a vast majority of circular dependencies come from the same source > package. This could be checked e.g. by lintian.
This is lintian wishlist item #316283. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
