Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control Depends field??
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:49:32PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:30:48 +0100
> Michael Koch <firstname.lastname@example.org> ha scritto:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:20PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > > Il giorno Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:04:52 -0300
> > > Otavio Salvador <email@example.com> ha scritto:
> > >
> > > > As I said, for APT, the order has meaning _always_.
> > > >
> > > > apt-get install foo bar
> > > >
> > > > Is completely different of
> > > >
> > > > apt-get install bar foo
> > >
> > > Could you please elaborate on this? I know for sure that Pre-Depends exists
> > > just for the cases where order _does_ matter. But I've never had problems in
> > > installing packages in any order (or probably I've just been lucky).
> > You should re-read about Pre-Depends again. It's not about the order.
> Could you please explain?
> /--- Policy 3.5
> | Sometimes, a package requires another package to be installed and
> | configured before it can be installed. In this case, you must specify a
> | Pre-Depends entry for the package.
> /--- Policy 7.2
> | Pre-Depends
> | This field is like Depends, except that it also forces dpkg to complete
> | installation of the packages named before even starting the installation of
> | the package which declares the pre-dependency, as follows: [..]
> So, what did I miss? This *is* about *order*. A Pre-Depends is used to declare
> a dependency needed for the preinst scripts, for example.
> I might understand that what the OP complains about is something similar to:
> Depends: unrar-free | unrar
> obviously here the order *does* matter, since in this case the DFSG-free
> package would be chosen, in alphabetical order it would not.
> Would you please clarify what you meant? I'm kind of confused now.
What I meant was that Pre-Depends exists because of the reason you described
above and not just to get dependencies installed before the other dependencies