Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
>> > > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency
>> > > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it?
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Henning Glawe wrote:
> > To illustrate the scenario:
> > - Package A depends on package B, which in turn depends on A
> > 0) User calls 'apt-get install <long-list-of-packages1> A B
> > <long-list-of-packages2>':
> > 1) apt splits the whole list into smaller parts after sorting by
> > dependency
> > where, in case this bug occurs:
> > <part1>="<long-list-of-packages3> A"
> > <part2>="B <long-list-of-packages4>"
> > 2) apt calls 'dpkg --unpack' for each element of <part1> and <part2>
> > == so far no problem ==
> > 3) apt calls 'dpkg --configure <part1>' and 'dpkg --configure <part2>'
> > where the first step already fails, because B is not in
> > <part1>, but A depends on B
> > == complete failure, user has to recover manually:
>
> debconf will not break in this situation
>
> (BTW, it's not formally essential, but it needs to have the same
> qualities as essential packages, and does.)
Debconf might not break in that situation but the system does. dpkg
still refuses to install the package without depends and
apt/aptitude/whatever fails. The user has to fix things up.
>> This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase it another way. If
>> someone provides a patch to remove that circular dependency, will you
>> apply it?
>
> Only if it managed to comprehend why the circular dependency is
> currently there and somehow address the issues it solves.
Then please enlighten us. There is little point of us stumbling in the
dark when you already have a perfectly good explanation why we will
fail.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
