On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 08:50:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > "Sergei Golovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Then having a unique, well-defined order of packages in Depends is a
> > > good idea. If packages aren't sorted their order is undefined (not all
> > > of the dependencies are added by hands, many of them come from
> > > substitution variables). So, the order may change from build to build.
> > > Since it is important for APT then this situation should be avoided.
> >
> > No. Just let's respect the control file order. If the maintainer has
> > put it this way, and we follow it, we avoid this too.
>
> No, Sergei is right. The order of packages within ${shlibs:Depends} is not
> defined, you're not completely avoiding the problem by reverting the
> change.
Would it be possible to only re-order elements that were introduced by
a variable substitution? That would make the list deterministic without
changing what the maintainer wrote.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
