Bug#128868: debian-policy: Depends semantics unclear re circular depends
Previously Peter Moulder wrote:
> The thread begins at
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200112/msg01329.html
> where someone says it would be useful if he could ensure that a
> particular pair of packages' postinst scripts run in a particular order.
I'm not convinced the circular dependency is needed here, and in fact
the current package does not have one.
> Adam Heath voices what is I believe the natural reading of current
> policy, namely that Depends implies postinst ordering, and consequently
> that dependency cycles aren't allowed.
Well, they are allowed but as soon as you create a cycle it will have
to be broken so you can't assume an exact ordering anymore.
> There are many cases where a package A requires other packages B in order
> for A to run, but where A does not need B to be configured before A is
> configured.
How common? I'm not quite convinced it is common. Also a lot of those
cases can be rewritten to use Conflicts instead of Depends.
Wichert.
--
_________________________________________________________________
/wichert@wiggy.net This space intentionally left occupied \
| wichert@deephackmode.org http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ |
| 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Reply to: