Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:43:34 -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> said:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > 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.
> FWIW, I think this is very much like turning on -Wall -Werror when
> compiling. It will complain about things which aren't errors, but,
> *because they are not mechanically distinguishable from things that
> are errors*, they should be reported anyway.
> Removing a non-buggy circular dependency may be worthwhile for the
> same reason fixing non-bug compiler warnings may be worthwhile -- so
> that the real bugs aren't drowned out by the noise.
In both cases, I am all for stripping the low hanging
fruit. But if a circular dependency normally exits, I am suggesting
we keep an eye on the contortions required to remove the dependency
loop. For some cases, it might not be worth the effort -- some times
the cure for the noise is worse than the noise itself.
Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C