Re: New package dependency field format
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:21:16AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > That still sounds redundant, and can be currently expressed with
> > Depends: foo, foo | bar
>
> That's not equivalent: in the original case you can have neither foo
> nor bar installed.
>
> What is equivalent is:
>
> foo Depends: foo | foobar-dummy
> foobar-dummy Conflicts: bar
>
> Note that it would require a major rewrite of the logic of the testing
> scripts to cope with syntax like "foo | !bar". And given the total
> lack of gain, it's not something that I'm willing to do or to support.
How would you deal with the conflict that arises when bar is later installed?
Do you have to check the dependencies for all packages whenever you install
something just in case they add a new dependency?
Package baz requires foo only if bar is installed.
I don't have bar installed.
I install baz. foo not required, bar still not installed.
I install bar for another purpose a couple of weeks later.
How and when does dpkg notice that baz is now inconsistant?
--Joe
Reply to: