Subject: Re: sorted dependencies
To: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?C=C3=A9sar_Catri=C3=A1n?= C. <email@example.com>
Date: 08/06/2005 18:26:14
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 14:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
"Jeremy C. Reed" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, [UTF-8] César Catrián C. wrote:
> > I would like to ask if the sorted dependencies can be avoided while
> > building. I think it is fine for the show-installed-depends target, but
> > it cause problems to me if I want to install some packages before others
> > in a meta-package.
> Why do you need some packages installed before others?
Because I have a meta-package with all the packages I need in my system. It has
180 dependencies and it is growing, and is sorted by levels of priorities
(servers installed first, games last, etc.). When I am upgrading, I delete all
the outdated packages (and dependencies) and reinstall all using the
Binaries are fast to install but I prefer to install the top priority ones first.
Sorry about talking about this, I know it is egoistic and maybe nobody has this
problem, but I preferred to talk about it instead of be quiet.
> Packages should have consistent installs.
If I need an ordered list to check to, it is supposed I have a name to look for.
If I need to look for a program, I use the show-installed-depends target.
I think the installation is consistent in both ways.
> (Sorry I don't have answer to your question.)
César Catrián C.