Previously Peter Moulder wrote: > The thread begins at > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html > where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a > particular pair of packages' postinst scripts run in a particular order.
I'm not convinced the circular dependency is needed here, and in fact the current package does not have one. > Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current > policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently > that dependency cycles aren't allowed. Well, they are allowed but as soon as you create a cycle it will have to be broken so you can't assume an exact ordering anymore. > There are many cases where a package A requires other packages B in order > for A to run, but where A does not need B to be configured before A is > configured. How common? I'm not quite convinced it is common. Also a lot of those cases can be rewritten to use Conflicts instead of Depends. Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ /[EMAIL PROTECTED] This space intentionally left occupied \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
