On 27/02/11 at 14:07 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: > On 25/02/2011 01:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > >> On 30/01/11 at 22:20 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >>> Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > >>>>> a) only native code: > >>>>> > >>>>> Packages: ruby1.8-foo, ruby-1.9.1 etc > >>>>> > >>>>> All of them must provide ruby-foo > >>>>> > >>>>> b) both pure-ruby and native code > >>>>> > >>>>> Packages: > >>>>> ruby-foo - contains pure-ruby code > >>>>> ruby1.8-foo - contains native code for ruby1.8 > >>>>> ruby1.9.1-foo - contains native code for ruby1.9.1 > >>>>> > >>>>> ruby1.8-foo and ruby1.9.1-foo (etc) depend on ruby-foo > >>>>> > >>>>> ruby-foo depend on the version for the default interpreter (so that > >>>>> installing ruby-foo will get you something that words) > >>>> > >>>> I think that we should go for this. > >>> [...] > >>>> Could you update the Wiki page? :-) > >> > >> Note that this creates a dependency loop. I'm not sure if that's > >> considered bad or not. > > > > Yes, I explicitly noted that when I updated the wiki page. I guess this > > circular dependency is not critical since it is a very short cycle in > > the dependency graph (A depends on B or C; B and C depend on A). I also > > don't see a sane way to avoid this type of dependency in our case. > > That rings a bell : http://bugs.debian.org/549442 > > But if i understand well, those circular dependencies will only last > during migration to new policy ?
I don't really trust Bill's opinion on this. I've just asked debian-devel@. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
