Re: apt-get should correctly process dependencies
On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 07:32:53PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> 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.
And you point is?
> > > 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.
This is a bug from mailx (AFAIK already submitted), but can't apt be enhanced
to work around this?
> > 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.
Yeah, right. "It's working. Nobody dare to touch it." Great way to make
> > > 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.
Well, then _there_is_ a bug in apt. What the hell am I complaining about since
Universidade do Algarve (EST) - Campus da Penha - 8000 Faro - PORTUGAL
1024D/CF32D4E7 F506 DDF4 0B92 247D B8E6 13BA A6DB 9E3A CF32 D4E7
Unix IS user friendly, it's just selective who its friends are...