On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:43:34 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently
>> > do not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem
>> > to put
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently do
> > not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem to put
> > in the word "jihad".
> One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed cir
> I do think that there is a whift of dogma around the current
> crusade against all circular dependencies, whther or not the
> installation phase actually cares about the dependency or not. Oh
> dear -- have I now offended all Christians?
Well, dunno...:-)
Seriously speaking, I think
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>>> [Ian Jackson]
>>> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>>> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>>
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 07:01:22AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad
> > against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions.
>
> It that's the case, I'm not sure this is the best way to make the
> point. I'm actua
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed circular
> dependencies without bying the cool aid that all circular
> dependencies are bad and must be eliminated at all costs.
>
> I appreciate the former, I thi
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:01:22 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the
>> jihad against circular dependencies is making any such
>> distinctions.
> Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to
> spread
> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad
> against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions.
Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to spread
out a religion" here?
I recently had an argument with another maintainer who also used
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:30:33 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> [Ian Jackson]
>> The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>> general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>> probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
> You seem to ha
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> >> [Ian Jackson]
> >> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> >> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> [Ian Jackson]
>> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
>> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
>> > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
>>
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ian Jackson]
> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
> > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
>
> You seem to have missed the argument that pack
[Ian Jackson]
> The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
> probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
You seem to have missed the argument that packages with circular
dependencies are impossible to install a
Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6"):
> Thanks to your collective effort, the number of circular dependencies in
> Debian has halved since the begining of the year.
... but as previously discussed there is nothing wrong with circular
dependencies. (Although of c
interesting
> nevertheless.
>
> - Forwarded message from Dominique Dumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: Dominique Dumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5
> Resent-Dat
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 18:28 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[breaking circular dependencies]
> Dpkg does it the way policy says it should do it and even slightly
> better since it checks for postinst files.
That's unsurprising, given that the relevant sections of policy and dpkg
were written by
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 27-Jul-06, 06:13 (CDT), Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No harder than all the other apt operations are already. install,
>> upgrade, dist-upgrade are all already NP-hard. And dpkg does handle
>> cycles correctly so why shouldn't
On 27-Jul-06, 06:13 (CDT), Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No harder than all the other apt operations are already. install,
> upgrade, dist-upgrade are all already NP-hard. And dpkg does handle
> cycles correctly so why shouldn't apt be able to? I don't buy that
> argument.
Dp
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 16:35 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
>> > The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
>> > becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to remove all the circular
>> > depends that are not neccessary?
>>
>
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue July 25 2006 05:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can
>> split them between dpkg calls causing install failures.
>>
>> The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failu
Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 16:35 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit :
> > The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
> > becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to remove all the circular
> > depends that are not neccessary?
>
> Sure, but an even better thing would be to fix liba
Bruce Sass wrote:
> [1] "obvious" fixes, imo:
- Use dpkg --command-fd
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Tue July 25 2006 05:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can
> split them between dpkg calls causing install failures.
>
> The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
> becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing t
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]:
> >> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example
> >> of a silly dependency.
> >
> > Actually, there is
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]:
What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"?
>>>
>>> Suggests is *way* weaker.
Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 11:49 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> I agree that there are many silly dependencies and they should be
> fixed.
And don't you agree that there have been enough unpredictable bug cases
caused by circular dependencies so that we can try remove all of
unneeded ones? We d
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]:
>>> What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"?
>>
>> Suggests is *way* weaker.
>
> Sorry, I meant Recommends.
>
>> The Needs would trig
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]:
>> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example
>> of a silly dependency.
>
> Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before
> being configured, bu
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]:
>> What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"?
>
> Suggests is *way* weaker.
Sorry, I meant Recommends.
> The Needs would trigger automatic installation
> with any tool. Actually,
* Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 15:38]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> > Suggests is *way* weaker. The Needs would trigger automatic installation
> > with any tool. Actually, if
> > A->B (depends), B->C(depends), and C->B(Needs), then A won't be
> > configured until both B and C are instal
Hi,
Andreas Barth wrote:
> Suggests is *way* weaker. The Needs would trigger automatic installation
> with any tool. Actually, if
> A->B (depends), B->C(depends), and C->B(Needs), then A won't be
> configured until both B and C are installed.
What stops us from using Recommends for that. The def
* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]:
> What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"?
Suggests is *way* weaker. The Needs would trigger automatic installation
with any tool. Actually, if
A->B (depends), B->C(depends), and C->B(Needs), then A won't be
configured unti
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]:
>> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example
>> of a silly dependency.
>
> Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before
> being configured, but
* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:46]:
> This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]:
> > > But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example
> > > of a silly dependency.
> >
> > Actually, there
This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
> Hi,
>
> * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]:
> > But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example
> > of a silly dependency.
>
> Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before
> being conf
Hi,
* Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]:
> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example
> of a silly dependency.
Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before
being configured, but there might be reason for the other direction.
Why no
Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage
5"):
> So you seem to be all for cleaning out that mad stuff, right?
Absolutely.
> Lets all get on with the list initialiy posted and fix those circular
> depends or note why they are required.
I a
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
>> > > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency
>> > > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it?
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > <[EMAIL
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
>> Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
>> > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
>&
Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
> > problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in cl
Osamu Aoki writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> Just curious ...
> dselect with dpkg-ftp ?
Yes. It does need some handholding and the need to dpkg -iGROEB its
download area repeatedly is annoying but it's very reliable in the
sense that (if y
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency
> > > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it?
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This doesn't answer the quest
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If I'd follow your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to pull by APT a
> library package libfoo2 without pulling some package using it.
The clear difference between a library package and some random
collection of data is that (most) C libraries have an API and are
designed t
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Henning Glawe writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> > Well, the problem with circular deps is not caused by dpkg but by the way
> > apt calls it:
>
> Ahh. Well, perhaps
Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency
> > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it?
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase it another way. If
Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 18:18 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> I don't buy the often-made argument that foo-data packages are generally
> useful to install just to look at the beautiful data. It doesn't fly; if
> you want to look at the data, use apt-get source. The exact same
> argument could be us
On 24-Jul-06, 17:32 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
> > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
>
> Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any
>
On 25-Jul-06, 07:10 (CDT), Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be a better thing to fix the bug and have deterministic
> software?
Dpkg isn't deterministic in the general case.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operatin
Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
> problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in closely coupled
> sets of packages, and it is best of one of the packages in the cycle
> is per data without a posti
On 24-Jul-06, 17:18 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
> > uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
> > those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can
> split them between dpkg calls causing install failures.
>
> The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
> becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to rem
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
>> I fail to see how the circular depends between tasksel and tasksel-data
>> would cause any bug though. I agree it's best to fix circul
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasion
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
> > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
> >
>
Henning Glawe writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> Well, the problem with circular deps is not caused by dpkg but by the way
> apt calls it:
Ahh. Well, perhaps apt should be fixed, as you say.
Personally I (still!) don't use it on my own sy
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> packages...
foo-data can often be arch: all, saving mirror space.
--
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:18:36 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
[...]
> May be a better solution would be to flag foo-data as "useless alone".
>
> (I would love to be able to hide from aptitude all these "useless
> alone" packages so I could sift faster in the package list).
!~G
The question is what
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
>> Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
>> uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
>> those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on
>> foo, althou
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:15:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There
> is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se.
>
> Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
> problematic. I would try to avoid it oth
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:12:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> > Clearly, dpkg authors have read all of policy, including the
> > caveats about circular dependencies.
>
> Thi
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:54:15 +0200
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I both cases, the circular dependency would be useful to avoid
> installing the common data without the software. Consequently, when
> you apt-get remove the software, you don't get an orphan data package.
You can then ap
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consequently, when you apt-get remove the software, you don't get an
> orphan data package.
... though perhaps aptitude's method of doing this is cleaner
(automatically removing unneeded packages).
-Miles
--
.Numeric stability is probably not all that im
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
> > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and
David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> packages...
Because libfoo7 bumps sonames and foo-data will have files in the same
location.
Kind regards
T.
--
Thomas Viehmann
David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> packages...
There are lots of valid reasons to do it; tasksel and tasksel-data split
to make it easier for derivatives to replace
On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:42:39AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> > packages...
>
> It could be useful if f
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> packages...
It could be useful if foo-data is very large, but changes rarely,
whereas foo is small, but chan
On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Steve Greenland wrote:
> > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
> > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
>
> Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any
> gener
Steve Greenland wrote:
> This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
> be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any
general-purpose depencency-based system to be complete[1], which is
totally
Steve Greenland wrote:
> Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
> uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
> those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on
> foo, although they are mostly fixed, now.)
I don't buy
On 24-Jul-06, 11:15 (CDT), Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There
> is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se.
>
> Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
> problematic. I would try to avoid
Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> I fail to see how the circular depends between tasksel and tasksel-data
> would cause any bug though. I agree it's best to fix circular deps in
> general, but it's not necessarily requir
Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> I see you have not fully followed through on reading policy
> here: [quote]
Quite.
> Clearly, dpkg authors have read all of policy, including the
> caveats about circular
> -Original Message-
> From: Loïc Minier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, 24 July 2006 2:32 a.m.
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Hasn't there been enough random bugs caused by circular dependencies?
> How many of them do you need before starting to fix your packages?
There have been more and more serious bugs caused by programs being
written in C, and I prefer to spend my time rewriting all my pack
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 01:07 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> > Yes, and Bill continues to ignore it, as well as ignoring my
> > posts to his bug reports (such as #368481) asking for specifics of how
> > individual instances of dependency loops cau
Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 01:07 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit :
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there
> > is nothing necessarily wrong with a circular dependency ?
>
> Yes, and Bill continues to ignore it, as well as ignoring my
> posts to hi
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there
> is nothing necessarily wrong with a circular dependency ?
Yes, and Bill continues to ignore it, as well as ignoring my
posts to his bug reports (such as #368481) asking for specifics of how
individual inst
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:58:51 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Debian GNUstep maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gnustep-back0.10
> gnustep-base-common
> gnustep-gpbs
> gnustep-gui-common
> libgnustep-base1.11
> libgnustep-gui0.10
Fixed in my own
Le vendredi 21 juillet 2006 à 17:58 +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> libgtk2.0-0
> libgtk2.0-bin
> libgtk2.0-common
This one is fixed in experimental.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> libbeid2
> libbeidlibopensc2
That was fixed by an upload last night. It should no longer be a
problem now.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 5
"Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see you have not fully followed through on reading policy
here:
,[ § 7.2 ]
| In case of circular dependencies, since installation or removal
order
| honoring the dependency order can't be established, dependency loops
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:25:16 -0400, Joe Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:56 -0400, Joe Smith
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>>> Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could
"Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:56 -0400, Joe Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be
considered a policy violation because they depend on dpkg not
working as policy sta
On Fri, Jul 21, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be
> > considered a policy violation because they depend on dpkg not
> > working as policy states it does.
> Could you elaborate on this?
I think he meant that dpkg breaks the loop, a
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:56 -0400, Joe Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be
> considered a policy violation because they depend on dpkg not
> working as policy states it does.
Could you elaborate on this?
manoj
--
Do inf
"Ian Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained t
Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
> Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
> maintainers.
Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there
is nothing necessarily wrong with a circular dependency ?
Ian.
-
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:49:36 +0200
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> sylpheed-gtk1
> sylpheed-gtk1-i18n
Fixed.
Thanks for reminding,
--
Ricardo Mones
~
The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness,
Impatience, a
Le Sam 13 Mai 2006 08:45, Adrian von Bidder a écrit :
> On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:21, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > Le Mardi 09 Mai 2006 22:49, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > > Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > libkcal2b
> > > libkdepim1a
> >
> > It looks like these two have circula
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:21, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> Le Mardi 09 Mai 2006 22:49, Bill Allombert a écrit :
> > Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers
>
> ...
>
> > libkcal2b
> > libkdepim1a
>
> It looks like these two have circular dependencies because libkdepim
> depends on libkcal, while a couple
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:31:58PM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:20:19PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>>> (In fact, IMHO nothing should depends from perl-modules at all).
>>
>> Correct. I'd prefer that nothing did
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:36:18AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> On Thursday 11 May 2006 01:25, Frank Küster wrote:
> > The only things that should be installed separately are
> > probably aptitude, apt and dpkg, then just dist-upgrade.
> From memory, upgrading apt + friends seperately isn't poss
On Thursday 11 May 2006 01:25, Frank Küster wrote:
> The only things that should be installed separately are
> probably aptitude, apt and dpkg, then just dist-upgrade.
>
From memory, upgrading apt + friends seperately isn't possible whilst synaptic is installed. In sarge, the gnome meta package
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 09:04:14 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:32:53AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
> >> Hmm... alsaplayer-common Depends: on "alsaplayer-alsa |
> >> alsaplayer-output" and "alsa
On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:24:58 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> alsaplayer-common contains the main alsaplayer binary
>> (/usr/bin/alsaplayer), which does not function without an
>> alsaplayer-output and alsaplayer-input pl
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 09:04:14 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:32:53AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
> >> Hmm... alsaplayer-common Depends: on "alsaplayer-alsa |
> >> alsaplayer-output" and "alsa
On Wed, 10 May 2006 09:04:14 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:32:53AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
>> Hmm... alsaplayer-common Depends: on "alsaplayer-alsa |
>> alsaplayer-output" and "alsaplayer-gtk | alsaplayer-interface". Is
>> this really a problem?
My q
Frank Küster wrote:
> Well, it isn't, since perl is installed by debootstrap (or whatever the
> installer uses)
*blank stare*
> Upgrading from sarge should be done according to the instructions in the
> release notes. The only things that should be installed separately are
> probably aptitude, a
Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:20:19PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> (In fact, IMHO nothing should depends from perl-modules at all).
>
> Correct. I'd prefer that nothing did.
Is this documented anywhere? If is really is the case that nothing
should de
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo
