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
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
> > 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