On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:15:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There > is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se. > > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be > problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in closely coupled > [...]
even if there was nothing wrong with circular deps per se (which i doubt), there are still two points: - if something causes enough problems and is not needed, just disallow it even if it might not cause problems in every single case. it's just not worth it. that's exactly what policy is about. many things in policy are about stuff that isn't a problem in all cases, but *might* cause problems - apart from all the policy stuff: the dependency graph is highly complicated and this complexity causes problems in many tools, not only apt and dpkg, and also for people. reducing the complexity of the dependency tree *if it does not cost too much* is certainly a worthy goal that will pay off. removing circular dependencies is a way to reduce the complexity a lot that doesn't cost us anything cu robert -- Robert Lemmen http://www.semistable.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
