On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 05:37:57AM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > 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.")
No, no, you're perfectly right, this should be documented. And yes, I answered partially in an ambiguous way. So reading the code shows this to be always the case... but it's definitely not enough. As you said, it *is* the intent, and I'll rework the documentation slightly to make this apparent in the near future.
