On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Steve Greenland wrote: > > > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally, > > > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused. > > > > > > Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any > > > general-purpose depencency-based system to be complete[1], which is > > > totally safe and does not adversely affect any aspect of the system > > > if some simple rules are followed, and which, if used incorrectly, is > > > still orders of magnitude safer than other dpkg features, such as its > > > support for setuid files, or its support for postinst scripts that run > > > arbitrary code at install time. > > > > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > > packages... > > foo is 2kb and arch:any > foo-data is 200M and arch:all > > There you have it.
Ah, true, I'd totally forgotten about that scenario. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Rime on my window (\ // ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
