On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:51:59PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >Le Mer 10 Mai 2006 14:40, Brendan O'Dea a écrit : >> On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 10:49:36PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: >> >Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed >> > by maintainers. >> > >> > perl >> > perl-modules >> >> These two packages are meant to be installed together, split only for >> arch any/all. >> >> I'm a bit puzzled as to why this is a problem, since this particular >> dependency exists in sarge and as far as I no caused no upgrade >> issues. > >cycles are evil, so when you can avoid them, it's better, and here ...
A specific problem, rather than a vague description of "evil" would help. >> Note that the dependency expressed is not exactly circular, since the >> perl-modules dependency on perl is "looser" than the inverse. Don't >> know if this matters for the problem you're trying to fix. > >perl-modules should not depends on perl. It's useless to have only >perl-modules installed, but this create no harm. > >moreover people just apt-get install perl, so that won't break anything. That would be true if perl depended on perl-modules (= current-ver). The current dependencies are used to allow a slightly newer version of perl-modules to be installed: porters had issues in unstable where perl was uninstallable due to the package not having built on an architecture.* Simply having perl depend on perl-modules (>= current-ver) is more problematic than the case you describe, since a sarge user may upgrade just perl-modules 5.8.4-x to 5.8.8-y, retaining the older perl package and things would go pear-shaped. --bod * ISTR some discussion about modifications to the archive suite which would keep binary packages from the same source package together on a per-arch basis, which would resolve this particular issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]