On 6/24/05, Ondrej Sury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 22:59 +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > > > I'd argue for exactly that. > > What functionality would you say a data package provides? > > > > It's the other package that provides the functionality, not the data > > package. The data package shouldn't even have to know about the other > > package. > > If you want to play word games and not apply common sense, then I would
It's not a word game at all. > say that foo-data package has functionality to provide data to foo and But that 'functionality' doesn't break without foo. Like I said before, what would you do if there also was a foo2 or bar (independent of foo) that'd use foo-data? Whatever you tried to achieve with the reverse dependency would not work in that case.
