Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-03 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, it has been repeated over and over that circular dependencies are bad > form, maybe even bugs. Still, there are packages for which they seem to be > the only reasonable choice, like liferea-gtkhtml, completely useless &g

Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Don Armstrong
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Prasad Ramamurthy Kadambi wrote: > On 11/3/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >There isn't such a rule. Broken circular dependencies are wrong, > >and needless ones should be fixed, but needed ones are definetly > >not a bug. >

Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Prasad Ramamurthy Kadambi
Hi,On 11/3/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There isn't such a rule. Broken circular dependencies are wrong, andneedless ones should be fixed, but needed ones are definetly not abug.But this is what  Bill had to say for my package festival-te. Hello Prasad,There is

Re: Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Don Armstrong
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote: > So, it has been repeated over and over that circular dependencies > are bad form, maybe even bugs. Still, there are packages for which > they seem to be the only reasonable choice, like liferea-gtkhtml, > completely useless wit

Circular dependencies

2006-11-02 Thread Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz
So, it has been repeated over and over that circular dependencies are bad form, maybe even bugs. Still, there are packages for which they seem to be the only reasonable choice, like liferea-gtkhtml, completely useless without liferea, which in turn depends on liferea-gtkhtml | liferea-xulrunner