On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > On Wed, 10 May 2006 09:04:14 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 12:32:53AM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: > >> Hmm... alsaplayer-common Depends: on "alsaplayer-alsa | > >> alsaplayer-output" and "alsaplayer-gtk | alsaplayer-interface". Is > >> this really a problem? > > My question, which I guess wasn't clear, was whether the circular > dependency is still a problem if one of the dependencies in the cycle is > an or'ed dependency.
Yes it is. Consider the following set of packages: A -> B|C B -> A C -> nothing 1) A user can request A and B to be installed. This fulfill the dependency. requirement. However dpkg cannot configure A before B and B before A. 2) Such user upgrade to Etch. dpkg must upgrade A and B. It will not replace B by C to remove the cycle and it still cannot configure A before B and B before A. So the problem exist as soon as there exists a choice of the alternatives that lead to a circular dependency. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
