On Sun, 15 Jun 1997, Clint Adams wrote: > > > Does this make sense to anyone but me? > > It seems unnecessary for shared libraries to have priorities if they're > useless without programs which depend upon them. > I don't see your point, and you seem to have missed mine.
I was trying to point out that allowing dependencies to reach outside a packages priority has the potential to cause problems, specificly when package intallation is organized using the priority levels (as has been suggested in the past as a solution to several packaging problems) Once the base system (required packages) is installed, all the important packages should be capable of installation, followed by all standard, etc... The two dependencies I sited for the priority group important are a case in point. Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769 Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_- -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .