[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 3

Bill Allombert wrote:
> Is it a request I report one ? I will if you want.

Shrug, I can ignore useless bug reports and/or orphan packages when
things get too annoying with the best of them.

(Hmm, didn't I already do that?)

> I cannot point you exactly why _this_ circular dependency is going to 
> be a problem, no.
> However I can point you to bug #310490 which show a woody system that
> could not be upgraded to sarge without removing most of KDE.

I've read that bug before and I appreciate the time you've spent in
chasing down these upgrade issues but I think you're generalising too
far from that bug to a conclusion that any given trivial dependency loop
will cause similar problems.

> and that apt was not able to deal with that optimally.  In the end we 
> were not able to fix the problem, because we could not fix woody and
> sarge apt did not fare better anyway.

Although sarge's aptitude did..

> The situation is too complex to
> expect the software to make the optimal solution of what should be
> removed to allow upgrade.

I'm not so sure, have you seen the work that's been done recently on
aptitude's problem resolver?

> So maybe it is not a bug in the uqm package specifically, but it is still 
> a problem for Debian in the big picture. 

Filing scattershot but reports with no useful justifications might
result in enough people going ahead and making changes to make it seem
worth your time to do so, on the presumption that one of the changes
will avoid some real problem, but please realize that you run the risk
of annoying people when you do it.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: