On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 08:50:37PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > 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.
I can certainly change dpkg-shlibdeps to define ${shlibs:Depends} that way.
For other variables, it's more difficult (substition variables do not
always contain dependencies, and the substitution is done globally on all
the fields at the same time without any knowledge of what they are
substituting).
Note however that the dependency is always simplified... redundant
information are discarded and I probably don't want to codify in stone
precisely how this simplification is done. ("pkg (>= C)" implies "pkg" and
thus "pkg" is discarded and "pkga | pkgb" is similarly discarded by
"pkga", etc.).
This might change the order the maintainer created because some
dependencies are removed because they are redundant with a stricter
dependency coming from a substitution variable.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
