On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 13:20:58 +0100 Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 19.01.2011 08:08, schrieb Allan McRae: > > If we want to be really pedantic about dependencies, we should list > > _ALL_ dependencies and not remove the ones that are dependencies of > > dependencies. > > Why don't we just do the correct thing: > > If package A depends on package B, and B depends on C, then A might > depend on C explicitly because it accesses C directly. Or it might > only depend on indirectly C because B accesses C. We should reflect > that in dependencies (in the first case, A depends on C, in the > second case it doesn't). > > The result is this: Whenever the dependencies of B change (e.g., C is > removed), A will still work correctly. > I'm also fan of this. The added correctness (both informational and system robustness) justifies the little overhead, imho. Dieter
