On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 06:11:46PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > The current proposal is not backwards compatible since it fundamentally > changes the meaning of Depends. Depends is transitive. If A depends on > B, and B depends on C. A can rely on functionality proveided by C. > Your proposal breaks that, since it allows removal of C (assuming B is > a meta package), keeping it installed in a broken state.
If A relies on functionality provided by C, then A should have a dependency on C; it's true that the transitivity certainly masks many of these absent depends, but their absence is still a bug, even if low-priority. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
