Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5
Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"):
>> I fail to see how the circular depends between tasksel and tasksel-data
>> would cause any bug though. I agree it's best to fix circular deps in
>> general, but it's not necessarily required each time.
>
> You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There
> is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se.
Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can
split them between dpkg calls causing install failures.
The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure
becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to remove all the circular
depends that are not neccessary?
> 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.
Which only works inside dpkg, not when apt splits package lists
between dpkg calls.
> There have also been bugs in dpkg's handling of cycles involving
> virtual packages but these are fixed now I think.
I don't think he says dpkg has a problem with circular
dependencies. He is talking about apt screwing this up.
> Ian.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: