Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies
On 6/24/05, Ondrej Sury <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 22:59 +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > I'd argue for exactly that.
> > What functionality would you say a data package provides?
> > It's the other package that provides the functionality, not the data
> > package. The data package shouldn't even have to know about the other
> > package.
> If you want to play word games and not apply common sense, then I would
It's not a word game at all.
> say that foo-data package has functionality to provide data to foo and
But that 'functionality' doesn't break without foo.
Like I said before, what would you do if there also was a foo2 or bar
(independent of foo) that'd use foo-data?
Whatever you tried to achieve with the reverse dependency would not
work in that case.