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

Re: Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Here's a thought: the system should actually *pre*-depend on packages
> that are required by the packaging system itself.  But essential
> packages are treated (at least by dpkg) as universal dependencies, not
> universal pre-dependencies.

What happens if a new version of dpkg has two versioned predeps that declare
each other as predeps? (Yes, this does seem rather a contrived situation,
but it is an extreme -- are there less extreme situations that are more
plausible? How does dpkg handle such things now? :)

Just curious more than anything else...

Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Reply to: