On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:30:33 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Ian Jackson]
>> The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>> general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>> probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
> You seem to have missed the argument that packages with circular
> dependencies are impossible to install and configure in the correct
> (dependency) order, and thus will end up being installed and
> configured in a nondeterministic order instead. It is documented
> that dpkg try its best to find a sensible order for the packages,
> but it is bound to fail one way or another if two packages really do
> need each other to be configured before they are configured.
If the packages do not require each other for installation,
then this is irrelevant. I suspect the vast majority of cases is that
packages depend on each other at *RUN* time, not install time.
Circular dependencies where the dependencies are needed at
install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad
against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions.
manoj
--
If you have to hate, hate gently.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
