Joey Hess wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Although sarge's aptitude did..
I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude.
The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upgrade with sarge's
aptitude..
I think the bigger problem is not whether it's possible
Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 à 21:12 +0400, Stepan Golosunov a écrit :
Looking at them, I fail to see why debconf-i18n has to depend on
debconf.
Because /usr/share/doc/debconf-i18n is a symlink?
Then this is something that can easily be fixed. Not as easily as with
the classical foo - foo-data
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From a graph algorithm point of view, if I'm not very mistaken,
dependencies being guaranteed to be a directed graph instead of a
generic graph should allow some simplifications/efficiency
improvements in apt and other tools, too.
For the record,
On Friday 13 January 2006 16:53, you wrote:
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From a graph algorithm point of view, if I'm not very mistaken,
dependencies being guaranteed to be a directed graph instead of a
generic graph should allow some simplifications/efficiency
improvements
Bill Allombert wrote:
Although sarge's aptitude did..
I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude.
The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upgrade with sarge's
aptitude..
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Henning Glawe wrote:
To illustrate the scenario:
- Package A depends on package B, which in turn depends on A
0) User calls 'apt-get install long-list-of-packages1 A B
long-list-of-packages2':
1) apt splits the whole list into smaller parts after sorting by dependency
where, in
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:57:57PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Although sarge's aptitude did..
I don't know, there were no ways to upgrade to sarge's aptitude.
The bug log contains a log of astronut doing the upgrade with sarge's
aptitude..
Yes, but only after
* Joe Smith
| Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| debconf
| debconf-english
| debconf-i18n
|
| These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
| not subject to the circular dependency postinst
Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 à 01:49 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit :
At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular
dependency. Until now, all circular dependencies cases I have met were
fixable.
Le lundi 09 janvier 2006 à 22:15 -0500, Joey Hess a écrit :
Bill Allombert wrote:
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debconf
debconf-english
debconf-i18n
These are all necessary, and debconf
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:01:58AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
| not subject to the circular dependency postinst ordering problems afaik.
|
| Well, I'm not sure if that is an excuse for violating policy.
Essential:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:26:26AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le jeudi 12 janvier 2006 ? 01:49 +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a ?crit :
At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular
dependency.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:30:56AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 09 janvier 2006 à 22:15 -0500, Joey Hess a écrit :
Bill Allombert wrote:
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debconf
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:12:27PM +0400, Stepan Golosunov wrote:
Looking at them, I fail to see why debconf-i18n has to depend on
debconf.
Because /usr/share/doc/debconf-i18n is a symlink?
perhaps the link should be the other way round. for example the most
common package split would be
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:34:27PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to
be a problem, no.
However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that
could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE.
I've
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:49:14AM -0600, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 09:34:27PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to
be a problem, no.
However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that
What does aptitude give as the breakdown between unused packages being
automatically removed, and packages being removed that you actually
requested installed?
Well I did not install any packages through aptitude.
The numbers of packages below the lines
The following packages will be
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:15:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
not subject to the circular dependency postinst ordering problems afaik.
[...]
The bug report for these does not give any concrete reasons why a
circular dependency
Le mercredi 11 janvier 2006 à 10:10 +0100, Henning Glawe a écrit :
a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy
At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
a request on this list being mandatory before adding a circular
dependency. Until now, all circular
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 11 janvier 2006 à 10:10 +0100, Henning Glawe a écrit :
a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy
At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
a request on this list being
On Monday 09 January 2006 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Just wondering why this wasn't mentioned yet: aren't circular dependencies
causing more work for RM's, too, because the testing migration script can't
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 10:15:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Bill Allombert wrote:
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debconf
debconf-english
debconf-i18n
These are all necessary, and debconf
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 11:15:35AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 11 janvier 2006 à 10:10 +0100, Henning Glawe a écrit :
a) explicitely forbid circular dependencies in policy
At the very least, I think they should be treated like pre-depends, with
a request on this list being
Bill Allombert wrote:
Is it a request I report one ? I will if you want.
Shrug, I can ignore useless bug reports and/or orphan packages when
things get too annoying with the best of them.
(Hmm, didn't I already do that?)
I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debconf
debconf-english
debconf-i18n
These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
not subject to the circular dependency postinst ordering problems afaik.
Well, I'm
Hello Debian developers,
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
This list is also available as
http://debian.semistable.com/unstable_developers.txt
(update daily, courtesy of Robert Lemmen).
I reported around 1/3 to the BTS. I simply hope I won't
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Bill Allombert wrote:
Andreas Tille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wordnet
wordnet-base
A new version of WordNet was uploaded just yesterday to experimental.
It also solves this issue but there is something wrong with the
dict-wn:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:20:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Debian Xfce Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xfce4-mixer
xfce4-mixer-alsa
xfce4-mixer-oss
Can you remind me why circular dependencies are so terrible?
These packages install fine and upgraded fine. What did we
ma, 2006-01-09 kello 21:15 +, Simon Huggins kirjoitti:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 07:20:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
Debian Xfce Maintainers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
xfce4-mixer
xfce4-mixer-alsa
xfce4-mixer-oss
Can you remind me why circular dependencies are so terrible?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:17:38AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
One things, if I've understood things correctly, is that it is not
possible to reliably know how they're going to be removed -- dpkg will
break the circle in a random place and this may or may not result in
the problems occur when
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:19AM +0100, Henning Glawe wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:17:38AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
One things, if I've understood things correctly, is that it is not
possible to reliably know how they're going to be removed -- dpkg will
break the circle in a
Bill Allombert wrote:
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debconf
debconf-english
debconf-i18n
These are all necessary, and debconf is an essential package which is
not subject to the circular
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:42:49AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:43:19AM +0100, Henning Glawe wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:17:38AM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
One things, if I've understood things correctly, is that it is not
possible to reliably know how
33 matches
Mail list logo
