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

Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control Depends field??

On Fr, 22 Feb 2008, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I can understand it might change the list of packages pulled, but both set
> are supposed to work since that what dependencies are expressing. If you

I disagree. Sometimes alternatives are something we put in to help
transition. We have
	... texlive-foo | tetex-bar
and if this gets reordered that would be actually a big disadvantage.
People will suddently get HUGE amount of packages due to
	tetex-bar depends on several texlive-packages

Alternatives have an order, re-ordering this is BAD!

dpkg should only reorder the different depends, NOT within ONE depend
the alternatives!

At least that is what was suggested by Kevin and somehow ack-ed by

Raphael, could you please explain the reasoning behind reordering
*within* alternatives, if this is done. If not all is ok.

> That said this new behaviour is not particulary new. It's been in unstable
> since the 19th november 2007. And we haven't seen major breakage in the

Ah, but maybe some of the bugs "why the hack do I get 500Mb of TeXlive
when I only wanted foobar" we got could be related to this (selecting
tetex-bin transitional package instead of the real dep of texlive).

Best wishes


Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>        Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org>                         Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094      fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
CLOVIS (q.v.)
One who actually looks forward to putting up the Christmas decorations
in the office.
			--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

Reply to: