> I do think that there is a whift of dogma around the current > crusade against all circular dependencies, whther or not the > installation phase actually cares about the dependency or not. Oh > dear -- have I now offended all Christians? Well, dunno...:-) Seriously speaking, I think that any word that could sound rude is, especially with e-mail, best avoided in arguments. Back to the point: > > > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently do > > not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem to put > > in the word "jihad". > > One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed circular > dependencies without bying the cool aid that all circular > dependencies are bad and must be eliminated at all costs. > > I appreciate the former, I think the latter is a bad idea. Well, we probably agree on that matter. But my understanding about this action is that it is not conducted as to eliminate these circular dependencies at all costs (maybe the "getting rid" is not the best choice of words for that). Which indeed, does not yet make it clear to me about what could be corrected in the circular dependency which console-common is involved in, anyway.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature