* Petri Latvala ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050624 17:57]: > 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
Uninstall-with is perhaps a bit bad. However, Depends has two semantics * Need the package during run-time * order of configuration Perhaps the first one should be available by itself as field "Needs". Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
