On 6/24/05, Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Petri Latvala] > > 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). > > Depends does not just mean "executables will crash or fail to load". > It actually means "it is pointless to install this package without this > other package". Having a package removed automatically because it no
I'd classify that as abuse. A data package doesn't require another package to do it's duties (since it has no duties of it's own) so there shouldn't be a depends. > longer has any reason to be installed is a perfectly legitimate use for > "Depends". > > That does not solve the circular dependency problem, granted. Perhaps > there is need of a package flag that says "it is pointless to have this > package installed by itself, so remove it if nothing depends on it". > aptitude currently deduces this from its auto-install state flag, but > perhaps a package itself ought to be allowed to express it. > > > Or maybe we need a new field for that purpose that only has effect on > > uninstalls, like Uninstall-with: foo > > That's an alternative. What if you introduce a new package (bar) that also depends on foo-data? Then you're forced to also install foo, although you don't need it at all?
