Re: Bug#49758: errors during recent dist-upgrades
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:53:56 Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> [ ... ]
> I see your point in the situation where the loop is mandatory (ie. there
> is no alternatives involved in the loop), like in this case. IMHO loops
> may be okay when there is an alternative way to satisfy the dependencies.
Sorry, I as the maintainer, didn't jump into the discussion before,
because I read my old e-mail account very frequently. Just some
remarks.
1. I took the package from an earlier maintainer with this
circular dependency structure.
2. I consider it to be useful because if only having both
packages would make sense. The wordnet browser without the
database makes no sense as well as the database without the
browser.
So why not packaging it into one package?
Well the database (wordnet-base) could go into binary-all
but the browser (wordnet) has to go into arch-dependent.
Why should the huge database (6MB) bloat the Debian archive
several times. It's a question of economy to have the
database in binary-all. May be it should go into the
new data section of Debian.
What do you think about that.
3. I would follow any sane suggestion how to solve the circular
dependency in this case. May be that the thing is not so
clever as it could be.
4. Did I understand the reasoning right, that the bug isn't a
real bug and I should close it with the next package update?
Kind regards
Andreas.
Reply to: