On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> "Sergei Golovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Then having a unique, well-defined order of packages in Depends is a
> > good idea. If packages aren't sorted their order is undefined (not all
> > of the dependencies are added by hands, many of them come from
> > substitution variables). So, the order may change from build to build.
> > Since it is important for APT then this situation should be avoided.
>
> No. Just let's respect the control file order. If the maintainer has
> put it this way, and we follow it, we avoid this too.
No, Sergei is right. The order of packages within ${shlibs:Depends} is not
defined, you're not completely avoiding the problem by reverting the
change.
> As I said, it's a know issue and we need to fix it however it would be
> nice to not get the problem worse changing the package dependencies
> ordering at build time, at least for now.
I won't revert anything unless you come up with some proof that this
causes severe issues that will disturb the lenny release process.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
