Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

[Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org>]

* Stephen Gran (sgran@debian.org) [060726 13:46]:
> This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > * Ian Jackson (ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk) [060726 13:18]:
> > > But, for example,  foo <-Depends-> foo-data  is not usually an example
> > > of a silly dependency.
> > 
> > Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before
> > being configured, but there might be reason for the other direction.
> > Why not inventing some new "Depends-for-being-useful" from foo-data to
> > foo, and having Depends cycle-free?
> 
> Like, say, Enhances: ?
> 
> I always thought that basically meant "useless by myself, but is useful
> for foo".  Pity it never got implemented into anything much.

Enhances is the reverse of Suggests.

We have (I'm now using needs, though this is perhaps not the perfect
word for the new dependency):
(A (op) B)   means:
Pre-Depends  B configured before A being unpackaged
Depends      B configured before A being configured
Needs        B configured before A being used

Basically, that would give us a new package status, pending (or so). If
we have A -> B (Needs), that would change the installation from:
{pre-depends satisfied} -> [pre-instA] -> [unpacking A] -> unpackaged ->
  [configuring A] -> installed
to
{pre-depends satisfied} -> [pre-instA] -> [unpacking A] -> unpackaged ->
  [configuring A] -> pending -> {all Needs satisfied} -> installed


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/