http://bugzilla.wpkg.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117 --- Comment #12 from Frank Lee <rl201 at cam.ac.uk> 2008-05-10 10:28:06 --- > Well, first of all: I do not call this dependency management at all. You are welcome not to, of course. But this is what Debian calls dependency management and it seems to work for them. > That's > also why I put a note to the change notes for some 1.0 releases that > dependencies have been fixed now - simply because the implementation did never > reflect real dependency management - but a kind of "include". They did exactly what I intended them to do and they were not broken. They did not do what you thought they ought to do based on your understanding of dependency management. Now I find that the latest version (I have only just updated from 0.9.7 + sundry patches to 1.0.2) causes lots of problems and have provided a patch to restore what I consider to be the correct behaviour. I accept that we disagree about what the correct behaviour is and am happy to replace all my "depends" tags with "includes" tags at some point in the future. > So the upcoming "include" functionality will allow you to do the same. However > includes in this sense are by no means providing an appropriate replacement for > real dependencies. As I already wrote this might be acceptable to for a few > packages. But "leveling" out various cross-"dependencies" using such an include > functionality could become a real headache. Debian copes. Ubuntu uses the same package management tools and seems to be doing quite well on it these days! > In any case the "include" functionality will bring you back this possibility. > > I am not yet sure if such a thing as "chaining" would still be a requirement > then. In fact I don't really think so since chaining is a very very rare > use-case and using include and dependencies could do the job as well. Can I clarify the include/depends/chains meanings? I'm a little confused so here's what I think you mean: * package A depends B : package B must be installed before package A is installed. Priorities will be over-ridden to ensure this. * package A includes B : package B will added to the list whenever package A is to be installed. Priorities will remain. * package A chains B : package B will be installed after package A. Priorities will be over-ridden to ensure this. Is that correct? I think it's important to be clear about what we're trying to achieve in each case - I wasn't sufficiently clear about the introduction of 'depends', it seems! 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. |