Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:39:04PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 04:57:58PM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:21:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >> > > `Depends' >> > > This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be >> > > configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends' >> > > field have been correctly configured. >> > >> > This phrasing is obviously wrong as you can install packages with >> > circular dependencies. This phrasing say exactly what Pre-Depends is. >> > >> > Depends should be described as follows: >> > >> > `Depends' >> > This declares an absolute dependency. A package will not be >> > configured unless all of the packages listed in its `Depends' >> > field have been correctly unpacked. >> >> This is incorrect. Depends is as described in policy, with the addition >> that dpkg will arbitrarily break loops. >> >> For the meaning of Pre-Depends, see policy. > > I stand corrected. > > Interesting. Maybe the arbitrary loop thing can be documented too in > the policy, or otherwise it should be not allowed. Interesting that > I have missed this delicate problem. > > Actually I think that it should be two types of dependencies. One > for normal dependencies, that is just need the other software unpacked > to work, and one for must not be configured until other ones is > configured. This can probably help a lot. > > Regards, > > // Ola
More usefull is probably a new type 'needs <foo> to run but can be configured without'. The effect would be just like Depends except that cycles can be safely broken at that point. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]