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

Re: [RFC] DEP-6: Meta-Package debian/control field

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> The current proposal is not backwards compatible since it fundamentally
> changes the meaning of Depends. Depends is transitive. If A depends on
> B, and B depends on C. A can rely on functionality proveided by C.
> Your proposal breaks that, since it allows removal of C (assuming B is
> a meta package), keeping it installed in a broken state.

If A relies on functionality provided by C, then A should have a dependency
on C; it's true that the transitivity certainly masks many of these absent
depends, but their absence is still a bug, even if low-priority.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: