This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Uninstall .dll last, reinstall first - final version

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:45:22PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On May  4 09:05, Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID) wrote:
>> At Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:28 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> > On May  3 21:49, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> >> The other potential solution would be to attempt to uninstall the
>> >> packages in dependency-sorted order, but that might get awkward in
>> >> the case of circular dependencies.
>> > 
>> > See my previous posting:  Circular dependencies are bugs, right?
>> > Creating a dependency tree and complaining about circular dependencies
>> > in setup would be nice, though.
>> > 
>> > Corinna
>> As you pointed out earlier, circular dependencies can be considered bugs in
>> the setup.hint files.  Shouldn't they be caught and fixed when setup.ini is
>> being made?  Then setup/Brian, which/who has enough to do, wouldn't have to
>> worry about it.
>In theory yes.  It just won't hurt to have a dependency checker in setup
>at one point, methinks.

I hate to disagree but I don't think circular dependencies are always

For instance, it would not be inconceivable for gcc to rely on gcc-mingw
since, for correct operation of gcc, gcc-mingw should be present.
However, the same rationale could be made for gcc-mingw.  It doesn't
make any sense to just install gcc-mingw since it needs gcc to function
so it could rely on gcc.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]