Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

[David Weinehall <tao@debian.org>]

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
> > > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
> > > 
> > > Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any
> > > general-purpose depencency-based system to be complete[1], which is
> > > totally safe and does not adversely affect any aspect of the system 
> > > if some simple rules are followed, and which, if used incorrectly, is
> > > still orders of magnitude safer than other dpkg features, such as its
> > > support for setuid files, or its support for postinst scripts that run
> > > arbitrary code at install time.
> > 
> > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find
> > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive
> > packages...
> 
> foo is 2kb and arch:any
> foo-data is 200M and arch:all
> 
> There you have it.

Ah, true, I'd totally forgotten about that scenario.


Regards: David
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@debian.org> /) Rime on my window           (\
//  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   //  Diamond-white roses of fire //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Beautiful hoar-frost       (/