Re: Essentiality of Bash
Le dimanche 27 juin 2010 à 14:27 +0200, Marc Haber a écrit :
> The problem is that we don't properly distinguish between "foo needs
> bar during installation or foo's installation will fail" and "foo
> needs bar to be installed or foo will not work". One could express
> this via Recommends, but the sheer wording is too lose for this.
Yes. A possible solution would be to introduce a new type of dependency.
I’m not sure the number of impacted packages justifies the amount of
> >For aide, I just don’t see the point: it’s the simplest, straight
> >example of an unjustified 2-packages circular dependency.
> explain "unjustified". This implies that the aide maintainers didn't
> think when they established the dependencies as they are.
Indeed. Every time the circular dependencies topic surfaces, we find
another maintainer who shows an example of a package for which circular
dependencies are necessary according to him. And every time, the package
quoted as an example can be fixed. I’m kind of tired of this behavior.
Given the low number of remaining packages to be fixed, it should be
forbidden by the policy so that maintainers fix their bugs instead of
: :' : “Fuck you sir, don’t be suprised when you die if
`. `' you burn in Hell, because I am a solid Christian
`- and I am praying for you.” -- Mike