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

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Ian Jackson]
> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a
> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and
> > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt,
> You seem to have missed the argument that packages with circular
> dependencies are impossible to install and configure in the correct
> (dependency) order, and thus will end up being installed and
> configured in a nondeterministic order instead. It is documented
> that dpkg try its best to find a sensible order for the packages,
> but it is bound to fail one way or another if two packages really do
> need each other to be configured before they are configured.

Packages which have circular dependencies and depend on the other
package being configured are buggy; at most they can depend on the
other package being unpacked. Since there is no way to specify this
kind of dependency, Depends: is as close as you can get.

Don Armstrong

It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what
makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is
 -- Andrew Suffield in 20030403211305.GD29698@doc.ic.ac.uk

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Reply to: