Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5
On 24-Jul-06, 11:15 (CDT), Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There
> is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se.
> Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be
> problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in closely coupled
> sets of packages, and it is best of one of the packages in the cycle
> is per data without a postinst.
But then what is the value of the circular dependency? Package foo
depends on foo-data. That makes sense. Why does foo-data *need* to
depend on foo? Is it really that much of a burden to remove the Depends:
the next time the package is uploaded?
Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that
uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to
those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on
foo, although they are mostly fixed, now.)
This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally,
be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net