On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 01:14:51PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > pkg-order depends on perl. > perl pre-depends on perl-base. > perl-base pre-depends on libc6. > > Does this mean pkg-order should really depend on libc6? > I don't think so.
No. That's because pkg-order doesn't depend on libc6; it depends on perl which does. If you have an old version of perl that uses libc5, pkg-order will work just as well with that. This isn't what people mean when they talk about indirect dependencies. Suppose I rewrite pkg-order in C, but still use perl for some bits. I could leave the dependencies as they are, and it would appear to work, but if someone installed a different version of perl that didn't depend on libc6, there could be problems due to pkg-order not depending on libc6 itself. If the thing indirectly depended on is only needed by direct dependencies of a package, that's fine, and no-one has ever said that it isn't. What isn't OK is if a package relies on an indirect dependency for something it needs directly itself. > What does this mean? Well, it just means that indirect dependencies do > really *exist* and not in all cases it is a good thing for them to become > direct dependencies. Yes. Who has ever said otherwise? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
