On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:30:32 +0100 Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:41:27PM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > > this seems to print the packages in the order they need to be installed for > > dependencies, is this always the case? > > yes. read the code. > > It's based on *-dir-depends, which shows the full set of dependency pairs, > and that goes thru tsort. > > I should actually document this, as it is useful and won't ever change. >
thanks, that answered my question even though i asked it wrong. i actually meant to ask 'will this always' or 'is this the intended'. i hope to make my questions relevant/useful. i admit i didn't read the code this time, since my question was more about intent. if something is undocumented i don't always expect that the code will remain the same (although i guess i could have checked it for relevant comments). is this a reasonable assumption? otherwise, reading the code IS usually best practice, not only for the sake of the devs, but it's better than waiting for answers that may never come. (to be clear, that is just an observation, not a complaint. i recall some documentation years ago that said "... unix users: you are on your own, but that's probably how you like it anyway.")
