Em Sex, 2005-06-24 às 17:30 +0200, Ondrej Sury escreveu: > On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 17:21 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend > > on foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, > > so it does not need to depend on foo. > > This is usually used as way how to also uninstall foo-data when you > uninstall foo. > > But I agree that this is just cosmetic compared to problems created by > circular dependencies... This should really be fixed in the packaging tool -- aptitude will handle this very elegantly, maybe bringing its expanded package states to libapt itself would be nice -- rather than using this kind of trick. See ya, -- kov@debian.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov> Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part