On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> This used to be documented in (I think) the packaging manual: if a cycle
> amongst Depends: exists, the cycle will be broken by choosing the package
> without a postinst (if there is one) or arbitrarily, iirc. There's still
> some determinism to be had,
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 09:52:21PM +1100, Peter Moulder wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> > Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> > > Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current
> > > policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Peter Moulder wrote:
> Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current
> policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently
> that dependency cycles aren't allowed.
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01392
Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> Please re-read the above paragraph. No-one has claimed that a circular
> dependency is needed.
That's the whole reason for this discussion though..
> They are allowed by dpkg, whereas current policy says that they are not
> allowed, hence giving false confidence
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 11:06:22AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> > The thread begins at
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html
> > where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a
> > particular pair of pac
Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> The thread begins at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html
> where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a
> particular pair of packages' postinst scripts run in a particular order.
I'm not convinced the ci
[Have cc'd some of the people whose postings are referred to. Since they
didn't ask to be cc'd, I've left them out of the Mail-followup-to header;
they can follow debian-policy if they're interested in the subject.]
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:23:54PM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> According to
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 07:08:21PM +1100, Peter Moulder wrote:
> From section 7.2 `Binary Dependencies' of debian-policy:
>
> #`Depends'
> # This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
> # configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends'
> #
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.5.6.0
Severity: wishlist
From section 7.2 `Binary Dependencies' of debian-policy:
#`Depends'
# This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be
# configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends'
# field have b
9 matches
Mail list logo
