http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117 --- Comment #6 from Frank Lee <rl201 at cam.ac.uk> 2008-05-09 16:13:29 --- > So you suggest that if one package has an actual *hard* dependency (i.e. simply > won't install or run without $OTHER_PACKAGE), then that should be handled by > the WPKG administrator by setting different *priorities* instead? Priorities help us distinguish between the "won't install" and "won't run" cases. Dependencies help us to choose which packages appear in the list. And there's not just the "won't install" vs "won't run" - both those can be solved by installing the dependency before the package. But how do we solve the problem where the dependency *cannot* be installed before the package? I came across this problem with an installation of office: my "officeXP" package depends on "officeXP service pack 3" which has to be installed after office. I could reverse the dependencies so that the "officeXP service pack 3" package depends on the "officeXP" package - but what do I do when "officeXP service pack 4" comes out? > I guess this is a matter of terminology: the use of "dependency" in the WPKG > framework is actually rather more like "includes", then, I suppose. I think that's how it's become. That's not what I intended it to be, though! 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. |