On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 09:26:55AM +0200, أحمد المحمودي wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 01:34:49PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:45:57PM +0200, أحمد المحمودي wrote: > > > The only reason that we need pcb-common to Depend on > > > pcb-gtk | pcb-lesstif > > > > > > is because there's an upstream desktop entry > > > /usr/share/applications/pcb.desktop installed in pcb-common, this > > > desktop entry executes the binary 'pcb' which will only exist if either > > > pcb-gtk or pcb-lesstif is installed. > > > > > > So, is it ok to remove this "pcb-gtk | pcb-lesstif" dependancy in this > > > case ? That would mean that a user could install pcb-common, yet > > > without installing any of pcb-gtk nor pcb-lesstif, so he will have a > > > desktop entry without having the binary that should be executed by > > > this desktop entry. > > > > For what it's worth, it's not universally agreed that these circular > > dependencies are evil and must be fixed. In this case all the relevant > > binary packages come from the same source, so there is no reason for > > version skew.
Whether they came from the same source package or not is irrelevant to apt-get and dpkg. User are allowed (and forced in fact) to do partial upgrades. > Well, I think I'll go with your point, since using TryExec was a bad > idea, as it makes the desktop file not appear in the menu ! I suppose the issue is that you did something like TryExec: /usr/bin/pcb but /usr/bin/pcb is a symlink and somehow the desktop environment does not deal with symlinks. I think this is a bug in the desktop environment. Maybe you can add one .desktop file in pcb-gtk and another on pcb-lesstif and also manage them with the alternative system. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org