On Sun 16 Dec 2012 02:58:36 Petter Reinholdtsen escribió:
> [Ian Jackson]
>
> >There is still nothing per se wrong with circular dependencies
>
> [Thorsten Glaser]
>
> > Actually, I’m hitting an APT bug during dist-upgrades right now for
> > packages with circular dependencies, usually two (perl
[Ian Jackson]
>There is still nothing per se wrong with circular dependencies
[Thorsten Glaser]
> Actually, I’m hitting an APT bug during dist-upgrades right now for
> packages with circular dependencies, usually two (perl with
> perl-modules, and g++-$version with its library), when they are
> i
Ian Jackson dixit:
>There is still nothing per se wrong with circular dependencies
Actually, I’m hitting an APT bug during dist-upgrades right now
for packages with circular dependencies, usually two (perl with
perl-modules, and g++-$version with its library), when they are
indirectly depended on
Le jeudi 06 septembre 2012 à 13:10 +0100, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> There is still nothing per se wrong with circular dependencies and
> there are situations where a circular dependency is the right answer.
I have yet to see one such situation.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Bill Allombert writes ("Status of circular dependencies in Sid"):
> Today circular dependencies in unstable reached an all-time low, with
> only 36 circular dependencies.
There is still nothing per se wrong with circular dependencies and
there are situations where a circular dependency is the righ
5 matches
Mail list logo
