On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 12:26 -0800, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Wednesday 12 January 2005 11:52 am, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > It's breaking elegance to fix something I'm not convinced is a problem. > > Just to be clear: you mean the elegance of the dpkg code, not its external > behavior, right? Because I don't see anything elegant about erroring out and > leaving an operation half-completed. > Why not? It means that you just need to go fetch and install the dependency, you don't need to try and install the depending package again.
Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
