On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 05:30:08PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote: > On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 17:21 +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > > 1) foo and foo-data. There is usualy no reason for foo-data to depend > > on foo. foo-data does not provide user-visible interface, only data, > > so it does not need to depend on foo. > > This is usually used as way how to also uninstall foo-data when you > uninstall foo. > > But I agree that this is just cosmetic compared to problems created by > circular dependencies...
It is an abuse of the Depends field. foo-data doesn't *need* foo for its own operations. Nothing in -data fails to execute without foo (because there's just data, nothing to execute). If the Depends is there to make foo-data automatically uninstalled when foo is uninstalled, then trust aptitude to do its dirty deeds. Or maybe we need a new field for that purpose that only has effect on uninstalls, like Uninstall-with: foo If the purpose was to make foo installed when a user installs foo-data himself, then Recommend instead. -- Petri Latvala
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
