On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Peter Moulder wrote: > Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current > policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently > that dependency cycles aren't allowed. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01392.html
They are allowed, but frowned upon, because they complicate matters. > Adam wrote some of dpkg's cycle-breaking code, so presumably his words here > should be taken as his interpretation of policy rather than dpkg > behaviour. > This is evidence that current policy wording is giving developers false > confidence that Depends is sufficient to ensure an ordering among postinst > runs. No, I didn't write it. I only fixed one problem, and that was by brute force debugging(assert/segfault was occuring, and I tweaked values until it was fixed). My fix for that particular problem was correct(another check was needed), however, I misunderstood the issue, and removed the existing check that was already there, instead of just adding a new one.
