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.
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
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: