Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 13 Apr 1998, Juan Cespedes wrote: > If I read the bug reports correctly, dpkg allows you to configure things > when other packages dependencies on those things is unmet.. Which means it > does not inspect reverse dependancies and reverse provide dependancies.
My reading was different. As I understood it, Pre-depends were not be respected in the reverse direction, i.e., dpkg allowed you to remove a package 'foo' v1.1, or maybe just downgrade it to 1.0, even if package 'bar' *pre-depended* on >= 1.1. (Or maybe we're saying the same thing, Jason, I'm not sure.) Juan, I think you should ask Jason what dpkg problems are making it a pain in the butt for deity. Our plan for slink, if I understand correctly, is to let apt be our package interface (i.e., get rid of dselect), but still continue to use dpkg for the low-level package installation. If my assumption here is in fact true, then we should be looking at what dpkg problems are creating problems for deity. .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
