http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117 --- Comment #4 from Frank Lee <rl201 at cam.ac.uk> 2008-05-09 15:48:27 --- > > The concepts of dependencies and priorities are orthogonal. > That depends on one's definition of "dependency". ;-) I was using the term as I intended it to be used when I wrote the package original dependency code! (Much improved by others since, of course.) > One could mean: > - A dependency means that one package *requires* another in order to work at > *all* (hard dependency); > or > - A dependency means that package A will not be useful unless package B is > also installed (soft dependency). One could, yes. Or one could mean: - A dependency means that to install a package requires another package to be installed or - A dependency means that to run a package requires another to be installed > Frank is using the second definition; my opinion (and the typical sense of > dependency with regard to package management) is that the first definition is > more usual. Frank thinks he's using neither of these definitions, actually (-: What I mean by a dependency is that the WPKG admin has decided that when one package is selected, some other package(s) should be automatically selected. (It's up to the admin to determine whether that's a hard or soft [as defined above!] dependency.) And that's all. My point is that I feel WPKG ought not to re-order the priority of the packages based on dependencies. Yours, Frank -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. |