Hi, On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 08:46:22AM +0100, Lo�c Minier wrote:
> That's a pity, any way fixing the deps in on the todo list. Let's hope > it was it. Yes, I agree that unreproducible bugs are quite problematic. I'll try to rebuild a similar configuration in a woody pbuilder, but it certainly won't be easy.... > > (I've seen in a bug report that you temporarily merged with this one > > that you consider that circular dependencies are alright. Reading the > > same section of policy, I think the are not.) > > I think circular dependencies are perfectly right, especially for > packages such as galeon/galeon-common. Well, I gave you my reasoning why I think circular dependencies (including self-dependencies) are broken. Where do you think my reasoning is wrong? Moreover, although I don't know much about the galeon/galeon-common situation, I don't think foo-common depends on foo any more than a library depends on a binary that uses it... Cheers, Nicolas
