On 25/02/2011 01:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: >> On 30/01/11 at 22:20 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >>> Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: >>>>> a) only native code: >>>>> >>>>> Packages: ruby1.8-foo, ruby-1.9.1 etc >>>>> >>>>> All of them must provide ruby-foo >>>>> >>>>> b) both pure-ruby and native code >>>>> >>>>> Packages: >>>>> ruby-foo - contains pure-ruby code >>>>> ruby1.8-foo - contains native code for ruby1.8 >>>>> ruby1.9.1-foo - contains native code for ruby1.9.1 >>>>> >>>>> ruby1.8-foo and ruby1.9.1-foo (etc) depend on ruby-foo >>>>> >>>>> ruby-foo depend on the version for the default interpreter (so that >>>>> installing ruby-foo will get you something that words) >>>> >>>> I think that we should go for this. >>> [...] >>>> Could you update the Wiki page? :-) >> >> Note that this creates a dependency loop. I'm not sure if that's >> considered bad or not. > > Yes, I explicitly noted that when I updated the wiki page. I guess this > circular dependency is not critical since it is a very short cycle in > the dependency graph (A depends on B or C; B and C depend on A). I also > don't see a sane way to avoid this type of dependency in our case.
That rings a bell : http://bugs.debian.org/549442 But if i understand well, those circular dependencies will only last during migration to new policy ? Jérémy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
