header package, installing dkms would force me to
install in one of the above cases _any_ header package matching an
installed kernel and in the other one to install _all_ header packages
matching an installed kernel.
If linux-headers-3.14 wouldn't be available in Debian anymore, the
origi
Hi again,
[...]
>
> B _does_ depend on C(A), if A is installed.
>
So B depends on
( A & C(A) ) | something-else
> > ... time passes ...
> >
> > magic install C(A) ???
> >
> >
> > Isn't all you want a hard dependency of dkms on both the Linux kernel and
> > its header package? It seems th
Hi all,
[...]
>
> No, you can't install B without C(A) if A is installed, that's the whole
> point of conditional dependencies. Thus at the second command apt would
> pull in C(A) or throw an error if it's uninstallable.
>
> If A is installed, B gains Depends:C(A).
> If B is installed, A effect
Le Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 12:51:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit :
>
> just for the record, this proposition looks very similar to another
> proposition about « conditional recommends » in May this year.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/1305977099.4715.47.camel@tomoyo
Here is the correct URL: http
Le Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 08:19:09AM +0200, Harald Dunkel a écrit :
>
> would it be possible to support combined dependencies,
> e.g. if package A and B are installed, then package C(A)
> has to be installed, too?
>
> That might be helpful for dkms packages, for example.
> A w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Michael,
On 08/20/11 08:55, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
>
> What event would induce installation of C(A)?! Let's assume neither A nor B
> are installed.
>
> apt-get install A (no point installing C(A)) apt-get install B (B does not
> depend on C(
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:31:11PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
The semantics are pretty obvious to me, it's the number of corner cases and
complexity that this brings what stops dpkg/apt/aptitude/100-other-tools
maintainers from implementing that.
What is the use case for
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:31:11PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> The semantics are pretty obvious to me, it's the number of corner cases and
> complexity that this brings what stops dpkg/apt/aptitude/100-other-tools
> maintainers from implementing that.
What is the use case for this?
(If I missed
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:55:10AM +0100, Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> Hi Harri,
>
> > would it be possible to support combined dependencies,
> > e.g. if package A and B are installed, then package C(A)
> > has to be installed, too?
> >
> > That might be he
On 2011-08-20 08:19 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> would it be possible to support combined dependencies,
> e.g. if package A and B are installed, then package C(A)
> has to be installed, too?
Not unless you implement that yourself. Requests for such features in
Hi Harri,
> would it be possible to support combined dependencies,
> e.g. if package A and B are installed, then package C(A)
> has to be installed, too?
>
> That might be helpful for dkms packages, for example.
> A would be the kernel, B the dkms package, and C(A)
> would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
would it be possible to support combined dependencies,
e.g. if package A and B are installed, then package C(A)
has to be installed, too?
That might be helpful for dkms packages, for example.
A would be the kernel, B the dkms package, and
12 matches
Mail list logo
