Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: >> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example >> of a silly dependency. > > Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before > being configured, but there might be reason for the other direction. > Why not inventing some new "Depends-for-being-useful" from foo-data to > foo, and having Depends cycle-free? > > > Cheers, > Andi
We have: Pre-Depends: Needs to be unpacked and configure before me Depends: Needs to be configured before me How about adding: Post-Depends: Needs to be configured for me to be useable The difference between Depends and Post-Depends would be that only the former may use the other package in the maintainer scripts. To implement this dpkg would need a new state. One between unconfigured and installed, say post-config or configured. Packages would go from purged to unpacked (unpacking done) to configured (maintainer scripts have been run) to installed (Post-Depends have been configured). Post-Depends cycles could be broken by allowing: A package can go from configured to installed when all its Post-Depends are configured or installed. Or Post-Depends cycles are just required to be transitioned as one, no splitting by apt-get into multiple calls allowed. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]