| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>> >I've altered some things (mainly cosmetic or trivial). One in particular
>> >was the recommendation to include bar as a dependency if you directly
>> >require foo, and know that foo requires bar.
>>
>> You misinterpreted what I was saying. I was saying that you should
>> never rely on the fact that libncurses pulls in gettext if your package
>> depends directly on gettext. You changed the wording to mean something
>> else. I've put it back to my original meaning, which reflects questions
>> that have been raised here.
>
>And I'm saying that that is the incorrect thing to do.
No you're not. You're not reading what I wrote. I refuse to believe
that you would actually say that package maintainer a should rely on
package maintainer b to ensure that some of package a's direct
dependencies are met.
I am saying that if the package layout looks like this:
a
/ \
b c
/ \
b d
you should never drop b from a's dependencies:
a
\
c
/ \
b d
just because you happen to know that c uses b.
I can't imagine why you'd argue with that. I assume that you aren't
actually arguing with it.
cgf
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |