http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117 --- Comment #10 from Frank Lee <rl201 at cam.ac.uk> 2008-05-09 18:59:10 --- > This is exactly how it is meant to be used. The service pack is for sure > depending on the installation of OfficeXP - not the other way around! This is exactly how you intend it to be used now. It is not how I intended it to be used when I wrote it! > I've never ever seen a program which interprets 'dependency' in another way. If > thing b depends on thing a then for sure thing a needs to be done BEFORE thing > b can be done. Did some of you ever use a project management tool like OpenProj > or MS Project? Try defining a dependency, you will never ever be able to > execute task b before task a if task b depends on task a. > Also in every dictionary everybody can read that a dependency means that the > thing which I depend on needs to be done in advance in order to be able to > finish my task. The discussion of soft depends (run-time) vs hard depends (install time) has happened ^ up there I think. > Service Pack 4 will simply also depend on OfficeXP. Period. > Then you just add Service Pack 4 to the profile - finished. If OfficeXP is > installed already (or installed before due to higher priority) then Service > Pack x is just installing. If OfficeXP is not yet installed when it's the turn > of the Service Pack it will install OfficeXP _before_. > So in fact you would even not have to add OfficeXP to the profile. Just add the > Service Pack and it makes sure Office is installed too. That's true dependency > management. I maintain 593 different profiles. When service pack 4 comes out, I definitely do *not* want to adjust 593 profiles in order to make the change! For me, the solution has to be at package level - using what you now call "includes" and what I used to call "depends", I think. > Now this request brings in another aspect. As proposed an <include /> node > could be introduced. The difference to dependencies and chained installations > is that the packages included might be installed either before or after the > package according to their priority. Umm, I would just point out that the combination of priority and the original meaning of "depends" would cover chaining and dependencies! > Of course one could also build some kind of "lazy" dependency by using include > and playing with the priorities. As this is quite easy when looking at a few > packages it gets very complex when hundreds of package are involved. It would > become very hard to trace that actually all packages required for a program > have a higher priority. Then it is much easier to define a hard dependency. I agree with you - I was intending to code up "pre-depends" as a tag after doing "depends" but it seems that's not necessary now! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. |