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

Re: dep-trace v. tsort (dpkg, source, bsd, reason)

Your right, that's a rule, it should work flawless when orderless.

Yes, if all pre-depends and depends are proper, consistent, complete, up to date. Some are "loose". (ie, sed v. tar : tag lib6 differently in squeeze) though.

One still has to install base before optional. If that occurs in one apt tag install run I can't see an orderless argument. (ie, during "challenging" upgrade)

It wastes time and frustrate newbies if anything goes wrong. As optional code can system(dep-trace) and use list if returned. As optional.

DEP-TRACE as a small libc6 /bin that can be used or set aside any time. It prints ordered deps quicker than a high level app can import a table. Isn't that fun in itself? :)

Have a splendid day all,


Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
"John D. Hendrickson and Sara Darnell" <johnandsara2@cox.net> writes:

But if installed in order "C B D A" it may cause headaches (see below).
>> If optionally applied in order "A B C D", sorted by deps, success is more likely.

And since people don't always install "A B C D" as set but frequently
just update a subset it is pretty much garantied that over time and many
many users any order of that set that is allowed will be tried. So this
really is a must work. There is no "is more likely", it has to work in
any order.

##### in a 90's release, "buzz", install guide called lack of order "a bit loopy"

Dpkg and its frontends have come a long way sinze buzz.


Reply to: