Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:43:34 -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently >> > do not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem >> > to put

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > I appreciate the work done by Bill on that issue and I currently do > > not have the feeling that it is run with the intents you seem to put > > in the word "jihad". > One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed cir

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

> I do think that there is a whift of dogma around the current > crusade against all circular dependencies, whther or not the > installation phase actually cares about the dependency or not. Oh > dear -- have I now offended all Christians? Well, dunno...:-) Seriously speaking, I think

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: >>> [Ian Jackson] >>> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a >>> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and >>

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 07:01:22AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad > > against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions. > > It that's the case, I'm not sure this is the best way to make the > point. I'm actua

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 02:18:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > One can appreciate work done to reduce un-needed circular > dependencies without bying the cool aid that all circular > dependencies are bad and must be eliminated at all costs. > > I appreciate the former, I thi

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:01:22 +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the >> jihad against circular dependencies is making any such >> distinctions. > Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to > spread

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

> install time are indeed buggy, but I see no indication that the jihad > against circular dependencies is making any such distinctions. Is the word "jihad" meant to mean "holy, and aggressive, war to spread out a religion" here? I recently had an argument with another maintainer who also used

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:30:33 +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > [Ian Jackson] >> The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a >> general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and >> probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt, > You seem to ha

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Frank Küster wrote: > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > >> [Ian Jackson] > >> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a > >> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: >> [Ian Jackson] >> > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a >> > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and >> > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt, >>

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Ian Jackson] > > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a > > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and > > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt, > > You seem to have missed the argument that pack

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

[Ian Jackson] > The only argument I've heard against circular dependencies as a > general rule is that they can trigger a particularly stupid (and > probably not very hard to fix) bug in apt, You seem to have missed the argument that packages with circular dependencies are impossible to install a

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6"): > Thanks to your collective effort, the number of circular dependencies in > Debian has halved since the begining of the year. ... but as previously discussed there is nothing wrong with circular dependencie

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 6

Hello Debian developers, Thanks to your collective effort, the number of circular dependencies in Debian has halved since the begining of the year. Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. This list is also available at

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

interesting > nevertheless. > > - Forwarded message from Dominique Dumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > From: Dominique Dumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5 > Resent-Dat

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 18:28 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: [breaking circular dependencies] > Dpkg does it the way policy says it should do it and even slightly > better since it checks for postinst files. That's unsurprising, given that the relevant sections of policy and dpkg were written by

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 27-Jul-06, 06:13 (CDT), Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> No harder than all the other apt operations are already. install, >> upgrade, dist-upgrade are all already NP-hard. And dpkg does handle >> cycles correctly so why shouldn't

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On 27-Jul-06, 06:13 (CDT), Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No harder than all the other apt operations are already. install, > upgrade, dist-upgrade are all already NP-hard. And dpkg does handle > cycles correctly so why shouldn't apt be able to? I don't buy that > argument. Dp

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 16:35 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit : >> > The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure >> > becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to remove all the circular >> > depends that are not neccessary? >> >

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue July 25 2006 05:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can >> split them between dpkg calls causing install failures. >> >> The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failu

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 16:35 -0600, Bruce Sass a écrit : > > The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure > > becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to remove all the circular > > depends that are not neccessary? > > Sure, but an even better thing would be to fix liba

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Bruce Sass wrote: > [1] "obvious" fixes, imo: - Use dpkg --command-fd -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue July 25 2006 05:38, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can > split them between dpkg calls causing install failures. > > The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure > becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing t

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 04:41:37PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: > >> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example > >> of a silly dependency. > > > > Actually, there is

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]: What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"? >>> >>> Suggests is *way* weaker.

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le mercredi 26 juillet 2006 à 11:49 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > I agree that there are many silly dependencies and they should be > fixed. And don't you agree that there have been enough unpredictable bug cases caused by circular dependencies so that we can try remove all of unneeded ones? We d

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]: >>> What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"? >> >> Suggests is *way* weaker. > > Sorry, I meant Recommends. > >> The Needs would trig

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: >> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example >> of a silly dependency. > > Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before > being configured, bu

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]: >> What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"? > > Suggests is *way* weaker. Sorry, I meant Recommends. > The Needs would trigger automatic installation > with any tool. Actually,

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

* Simon Richter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 15:38]: > Andreas Barth wrote: > > > Suggests is *way* weaker. The Needs would trigger automatic installation > > with any tool. Actually, if > > A->B (depends), B->C(depends), and C->B(Needs), then A won't be > > configured until both B and C are instal

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Hi, Andreas Barth wrote: > Suggests is *way* weaker. The Needs would trigger automatic installation > with any tool. Actually, if > A->B (depends), B->C(depends), and C->B(Needs), then A won't be > configured until both B and C are installed. What stops us from using Recommends for that. The def

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

* Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 14:49]: > What about using Suggests instead of "Depends-for-being-useful"? Suggests is *way* weaker. The Needs would trigger automatic installation with any tool. Actually, if A->B (depends), B->C(depends), and C->B(Needs), then A won't be configured unti

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: >> But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example >> of a silly dependency. > > Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before > being configured, but

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

* Stephen Gran ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:46]: > This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said: > > Hi, > > > > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: > > > But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example > > > of a silly dependency. > > > > Actually, there

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

This one time, at band camp, Andreas Barth said: > Hi, > > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: > > But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example > > of a silly dependency. > > Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before > being conf

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Hi, * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060726 13:18]: > But, for example, foo <-Depends-> foo-data is not usually an example > of a silly dependency. Actually, there is no reason why foo-data needs foo configured before being configured, but there might be reason for the other direction. Why no

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Goswin von Brederlow writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > So you seem to be all for cleaning out that mad stuff, right? Absolutely. > Lets all get on with the list initialiy posted and fix those circular > depends or note why they are required. I a

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Josselin Mouette wrote: >> Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : >> > > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency >> > > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it? >> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > <[EMAIL

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): >> Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : >> > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be >&

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Josselin Mouette writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be > > problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in cl

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Osamu Aoki writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > Just curious ... > dselect with dpkg-ftp ? Yes. It does need some handholding and the need to dpkg -iGROEB its download area repeatedly is annoying but it's very reliable in the sense that (if y

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > > > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency > > > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it? > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This doesn't answer the quest

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Josselin Mouette wrote: > If I'd follow your reasoning, we shouldn't be able to pull by APT a > library package libfoo2 without pulling some package using it. The clear difference between a library package and some random collection of data is that (most) C libraries have an API and are designed t

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Henning Glawe writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > > Well, the problem with circular deps is not caused by dpkg but by the way > > apt calls it: > > Ahh. Well, perhaps

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 10:55 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > > Furthermore, there is no real justification for the circular dependency > > in debconf. Why don't you just fix it? > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This doesn't answer the question. Let me rephrase it another way. If

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 18:18 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > I don't buy the often-made argument that foo-data packages are generally > useful to install just to look at the beautiful data. It doesn't fly; if > you want to look at the data, use apt-get source. The exact same > argument could be us

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On 24-Jul-06, 17:32 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Greenland wrote: > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally, > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused. > > Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any >

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On 25-Jul-06, 07:10 (CDT), Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't it be a better thing to fix the bug and have deterministic > software? Dpkg isn't deterministic in the general case. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operatin

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le lundi 24 juillet 2006 à 17:15 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit : > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be > problematic. I would try to avoid it other than in closely coupled > sets of packages, and it is best of one of the packages in the cycle > is per data without a posti

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On 24-Jul-06, 17:18 (CDT), Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Greenland wrote: > > Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that > > uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to > > those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Except that libapt does NOT correctly handle dependency loops and can > split them between dpkg calls causing install failures. > > The more circular depends there are the more likely such a failure > becomes. So wouldn't it be a good thing to rem

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): >> I fail to see how the circular depends between tasksel and tasksel-data >> would cause any bug though. I agree it's best to fix circul

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > Steve Greenland wrote: > > > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasion

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Steve Greenland wrote: > > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally, > > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused. > > >

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Henning Glawe writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > Well, the problem with circular deps is not caused by dpkg but by the way > apt calls it: Ahh. Well, perhaps apt should be fixed, as you say. Personally I (still!) don't use it on my own sy

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > packages... foo-data can often be arch: all, saving mirror space. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:18:36 +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote: [...] > May be a better solution would be to flag foo-data as "useless alone". > > (I would love to be able to hide from aptitude all these "useless > alone" packages so I could sift faster in the package list). !~G The question is what

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steve Greenland wrote: >> Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that >> uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to >> those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on >> foo, althou

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:15:19PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There > is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se. > > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be > problematic. I would try to avoid it oth

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:12:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > > Clearly, dpkg authors have read all of policy, including the > > caveats about circular dependencies. > > Thi

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 07:54:15 +0200 Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I both cases, the circular dependency would be useful to avoid > installing the common data without the software. Consequently, when > you apt-get remove the software, you don't get an orphan data package. You can then ap

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Consequently, when you apt-get remove the software, you don't get an > orphan data package. ... though perhaps aptitude's method of doing this is cleaner (automatically removing unneeded packages). -Miles -- .Numeric stability is probably not all that im

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 04:39:24AM +0200, David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Steve Greenland wrote: > > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally, > > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

David Weinehall wrote: > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > packages... Because libfoo7 bumps sonames and foo-data will have files in the same location. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

David Weinehall wrote: > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > packages... There are lots of valid reasons to do it; tasksel and tasksel-data split to make it easier for derivatives to replace

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 11:42:39AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > > packages... > > It could be useful if f

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, if foo depends on foo-data, and foo-data depends on foo, I find > it really hard to see the point of splitting the two into distinctive > packages... It could be useful if foo-data is very large, but changes rarely, whereas foo is small, but chan

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 06:32:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Steve Greenland wrote: > > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally, > > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused. > > Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any > gener

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Steve Greenland wrote: > This really seems like something that while they may, very occasionally, > be required, are mostly unnecessary and often misused. Rather, I'd characterise it as a feature that is necessary for any general-purpose depencency-based system to be complete[1], which is totally

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Steve Greenland wrote: > Sure, it allows some one to install foo-data without the program that > uses it? So what? It's unlikely to happen by accident, and annoying to > those doing it intentionally. (Just like those foo-docs that depend on > foo, although they are mostly fixed, now.) I don't buy

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On 24-Jul-06, 11:15 (CDT), Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You persist in using the word `fix'. But that's not correct. There > is NOTHING WRONG with circular dependencies per se. > > Of course particular instances of circular dependencies might be > problematic. I would try to avoid

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Loïc Minier writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > I fail to see how the circular depends between tasksel and tasksel-data > would cause any bug though. I agree it's best to fix circular deps in > general, but it's not necessarily requir

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Manoj Srivastava writes ("Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > I see you have not fully followed through on reading policy > here: [quote] Quite. > Clearly, dpkg authors have read all of policy, including the > caveats about circular

RE: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

> -Original Message- > From: Loïc Minier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, 24 July 2006 2:32 a.m. > To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5 > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Josselin Mouette wrote: > Hasn't there been enough random bugs caused by circular dependencies? > How many of them do you need before starting to fix your packages? There have been more and more serious bugs caused by programs being written in C, and I prefer to spend my time rewriting all my pack

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Sun, Jul 23, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 01:07 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > > Yes, and Bill continues to ignore it, as well as ignoring my > > posts to his bug reports (such as #368481) asking for specifics of how > > individual instances of dependency loops cau

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le dimanche 23 juillet 2006 à 01:07 -0400, Joey Hess a écrit : > Ian Jackson wrote: > > Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there > > is nothing necessarily wrong with a circular dependency ? > > Yes, and Bill continues to ignore it, as well as ignoring my > posts to hi

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Ian Jackson wrote: > Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there > is nothing necessarily wrong with a circular dependency ? Yes, and Bill continues to ignore it, as well as ignoring my posts to his bug reports (such as #368481) asking for specifics of how individual inst

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:58:51 +0200, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Debian GNUstep maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > gnustep-back0.10 > gnustep-base-common > gnustep-gpbs > gnustep-gui-common > libgnustep-base1.11 > libgnustep-gui0.10 Fixed in my own

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Le vendredi 21 juillet 2006 à 17:58 +0200, Bill Allombert a écrit : > Sebastien Bacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > libgtk2.0-0 > libgtk2.0-bin > libgtk2.0-common This one is fixed in experimental. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `.

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > libbeid2 > libbeidlibopensc2 That was fixed by an upload last night. It should no longer be a problem now. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 5

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

"Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I see you have not fully followed through on reading policy here: ,[ § 7.2 ] | In case of circular dependencies, since installation or removal order | honoring the dependency order can't be established, dependency loops |

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:25:16 -0400, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > "Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:56 -0400, Joe Smith >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >>> Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

"Manoj Srivastava" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:56 -0400, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be considered a policy violation because they depend on dpkg not working as policy sta

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Fri, Jul 21, 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be > > considered a policy violation because they depend on dpkg not > > working as policy states it does. > Could you elaborate on this? I think he meant that dpkg breaks the loop, a

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:09:56 -0400, Joe Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Well, strictly speaking all circular dependencies could be > considered a policy violation because they depend on dpkg not > working as policy states it does. Could you elaborate on this? manoj -- Do inf

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

"Ian Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. Didn't we already have the

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Bill Allombert writes ("Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5"): > Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by > maintainers. Didn't we already have the conversation where we explained that there is nothing necessarily wrong with a circu

Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 5

Dear Debian developers, Here the list of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by maintainers. This list is also available at (update daily, courtesy of Robert Lemmen). A list of dependencies including dependency graphs is avail

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:49:36 +0200 Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ricardo Mones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > sylpheed-gtk1 > sylpheed-gtk1-i18n Fixed. Thanks for reminding, -- Ricardo Mones ~ The three principal virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience, a

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

Le Sam 13 Mai 2006 08:45, Adrian von Bidder a écrit : > On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:21, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > Le Mardi 09 Mai 2006 22:49, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > > Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers > > > > ... > > > > > libkcal2b > > > libkdepim1a > > > > It looks like these two have circula

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:21, Daniel Schepler wrote: > Le Mardi 09 Mai 2006 22:49, Bill Allombert a écrit : > > Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers > > ... > > > libkcal2b > > libkdepim1a > > It looks like these two have circular dependencies because libkdepim > depends on libkcal, while a couple

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:31:58PM +0200, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: >Brendan O'Dea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 04:20:19PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >>> (In fact, IMHO nothing should depends from perl-modules at all). >> >> Correct. I'd prefer that nothing did

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:36:18AM +1000, Andrew Vaughan wrote: > On Thursday 11 May 2006 01:25, Frank Küster wrote: > > The only things that should be installed separately are > > probably aptitude, apt and dpkg, then just dist-upgrade. > From memory, upgrading apt + friends seperately isn't poss

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Thursday 11 May 2006 01:25, Frank Küster wrote: > The only things that should be installed separately are > probably aptitude, apt and dpkg, then just dist-upgrade. > From memory, upgrading apt + friends seperately isn't possible whilst synaptic is installed. In sarge, the gnome meta package

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

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 "alsa

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

On Wed, 10 May 2006 14:24:58 -0400, James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 01:41:56PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote: >> alsaplayer-common contains the main alsaplayer binary >> (/usr/bin/alsaplayer), which does not function without an >> alsaplayer-output and alsaplayer-input pl

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

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 "alsa

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies, stage 4

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 q

  1   2   3   >