On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 19.01.2011 08:08, schrieb Allan McRae: >> If we want to be really pedantic about dependencies, we should list >> _ALL_ dependencies and not remove the ones that are dependencies of >> dependencies. > > Why don't we just do the correct thing: +1
> > If package A depends on package B, and B depends on C, then A might > depend on C explicitly because it accesses C directly. Or it might only > depend on indirectly C because B accesses C. We should reflect that in > dependencies (in the first case, A depends on C, in the second case it > doesn't). > > The result is this: Whenever the dependencies of B change (e.g., C is > removed), A will still work correctly. And this check is done by a software not by a "scientist" predicate that varies depending on the experience of maintainer. -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net
