On 18/03/14 21:45, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Daniel Lintott wrote: >> Following my recent work on bug #736820 [1], which required packaging a >> number of new modules, I've now discovered it has created a circular >> dependency! >> >> libnet-frame-perl depends on libnet-frame-device-perl (this is to fix >> the bug) >> >> and >> >> libnet-frame-device-perl depends on libnet-frame-perl. >> >> Looking at bug again, would it be acceptable on libnet-frame-perl to >> drop the dependency to a suggests? > > Because neither libnet-frame-device-perl nor libnet-frame-perl have > postinsts and the dependency cycle is very short the restriction on > circular dependencies isn't really important here. > > That said, it would be possible for libnet-frame-device-perl to > Recommends: libnet-frame-perl, especially if you can include an > informative error message in the modules in libnet-frame-device-perl > which tell people to install libnet-frame-perl [and if anything which > depends on libnet-frame-device-perl is fixed to depend on > libnet-frame-perl instead.] > I have had more of a think about this... and believe that a recommends would be appropriate. Looking at libnet-frame-perl, it doesn't require libnet-frame-device-perl to be present to be used, but it's probably useful if it does, hence a recommends [1]. My other justification on this would be, the depends of a package are what is needed for that package to function, not every package a developer might want with it... please correct me if I'm wrong! [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps Regards, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature