On Fri, 03 Nov 2006, Prasad Ramamurthy Kadambi wrote: > On 11/3/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >There isn't such a rule. Broken circular dependencies are wrong, > >and needless ones should be fixed, but needed ones are definetly > >not a bug. > > But this is what Bill had to say for my package festival-te.
Yes; this has been discussed a few times on -devel. > See threads > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg02111.html Yes, I'm aware of these threads... in brief: 1) Policy already deals with this correctly: In case of circular dependencies, since installation or removal order honoring the dependency order can't be established, dependency loops are broken at some point (based on rules below), and some packages may not be able to rely on their dependencies being present when being installed or removed, depending on which side of the break of the circular dependcy loop they happen to be on. If one of the packages in the loop has no postinst script, then the cycle will be broken at that package, so as to ensure that all postinst scripts run with the dependencies properly configured if this is possible. Otherwise the breaking point is arbitrary. 2) #310490 is a bug in aptitude in woody. 3) Any dependency does this; that's kind of a red herring. 4) This is only the case when you have circular *build* dependencies; circular dependencies themselves don't make things more difficult. #5 really isn't an issue. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/10/msg00916.html is the beginning of a more recent thread about these issues. Don Armstrong -- Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
