Re: Circular dependencies
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz <rodrigo@nul-unu.com> writes:
> So, it has been repeated over and over that circular dependencies are bad
> form, maybe even bugs. Still, there are packages for which they seem to be
> the only reasonable choice, like liferea-gtkhtml, completely useless
> without liferea, which in turn depends on liferea-gtkhtml | liferea-xulrunner
> because it is completely useless without (at least) one of them.
>
> So, does one break the no-circular-dependencies rule here? Get one of the packages
> to Recommend: the other? Downgrade and wontfix the bug report (#386685)
> with a link to the thread on -devel? Close it?
I don't think a "useless without" applies to a library. Kdelibs4 is
useless without kde apps but you still don't see it depend on kwm |
kdm | ....
The depends are for when things break when you don't have the other
package. An application breask without the library since users calling
it without get errors. A library does not break without applications,
it just doesn't get used.
This is one of the cases of a depends for the sake of getting
liferea-gtkhtml removed when liferea is removed. Let the automatic
removal of aptitude, deborphan or debfoster take care of that. A
depends is not needed.
My 2c,
Goswin
Reply to: