Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies
On 6/24/05, Peter Samuelson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> [Petri Latvala]
> > It is an abuse of the Depends field. foo-data doesn't *need* foo for
> > its own operations. Nothing in -data fails to execute without foo
> > (because there's just data, nothing to execute).
> Depends does not just mean "executables will crash or fail to load".
> It actually means "it is pointless to install this package without this
> other package". Having a package removed automatically because it no
I'd classify that as abuse.
A data package doesn't require another package to do it's duties
(since it has no duties of it's own) so there shouldn't be a depends.
> longer has any reason to be installed is a perfectly legitimate use for
> That does not solve the circular dependency problem, granted. Perhaps
> there is need of a package flag that says "it is pointless to have this
> package installed by itself, so remove it if nothing depends on it".
> aptitude currently deduces this from its auto-install state flag, but
> perhaps a package itself ought to be allowed to express it.
> > Or maybe we need a new field for that purpose that only has effect on
> > uninstalls, like Uninstall-with: foo
> That's an alternative.
What if you introduce a new package (bar) that also depends on
foo-data? Then you're forced to also install foo, although you don't
need it at all?