[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: apt-get should correctly process dependencies



On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 06:23:44PM +0000, Pedro Miguel Guerreiro wrote:
> > > After all, what's the use of having a default MTA, if the packages
> > > don't pick it up when thay need a MTA? ;-)
> > 
> > Because of the default installs? :)
> 
> Uh? Shouldn't the default installs pick up Important packages and not any
> others?

Yes, the default installs, but not other kinds of installs.

> > Depends: real-package-providing-virtual-package-foo | virtual-package-foo
> 
> Are maintainers _really_ helping, are are they just confusing apt?

Yes, they are helping. Presuming the latter package exists. In this case it
does not, and this is a bug.

> >From what I've said earlier, shouldn't it be
> 
> Depends: virtual-package-foo
> 
> and leave it up to apt to pick up the default package that provides
> vitual-package-foo? This way when we changed a default (like when we changed
> from smail to exim for the default MTA) things wouldn't break.

Perhaps, but what I said is implemented now and works fine. And with other
packaging tools such as dselect.

Besides, this doesn't have to be about default things only, it can be about
per-package preference.

> > However in this case the first component doesn't exist, so something went
> > wrong with apt-get logic...
> 
> Yeah, well what went wrong? :-) Maybe the help of the maintainers? ;-)

No, apt-get should have ignored the missing dependency because of the OR
condition ("|"), and picked zmailer-ssl or whatever, not bail out.

-- 
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification


Reply to: