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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

"Ian Jackson" <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message [🔎] 17601.1988.608137.816884@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk">news:[🔎] 17601.1988.608137.816884@davenant.relativity.greenend.org.uk...

Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by

Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there
is nothing necessarily wrong with a circular dependency ?

Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be considered a policy violation because they
depend on dpkg not working as policy states it does.

They are also a pain to any person who is manually feeding packages to dpkg one at a time. There seems to be no reason why that should not be able to work, but circular dependencies will always break that. There are other issues with them as well. If there is a circular dependency your package cannot rely on the fact that its dependecies are indeed installed and configured. That is not good.

Reply to: