wendellchao / opkg

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/opkg
0 stars 0 forks source link

After install, Suggests: is treated like Depends: #23

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Say I have two packages*, A and B, where A Suggests: B. When installing
either A or B, this is not a problem, but once both is installed, opkg
seems to think that A depends on B.
This is visible both in the whatdepends command, which lists A as
dependant, and in remove, which refuses for the same reason.

What steps will reproduce the problem?
(This is just an example, see above/below)
1. opkg whatdepends mplayer
2. opkg info ffalarms
3. Compare the output of both with regards to dependencies

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I see that whatdepends says ffalarms depends on mplayer, while info says it
only Suggests: mplayer, not Depends: mplayer.
I would expect the output of whatdepends to match the output of info,
either saying ffalarms suggests mplayer, or not mentioning ffalarms at all.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
opkg 0.1.6+svnr215-r4, up-to-date SHR-unstable.

Please provide any additional information below.
The packages used in the example could be a bit misleading, as there are
other packages installed that do depend on mplayer, but they were the
easiest ones to use that I found in the standard package repositories.

*) The packages I found this with are my own (sgt-puzzles and -launcher,
from my own repository), which have nothing else depending on them (except
that B depends on A in addition to the above-mentioned A to B suggestion).

Original issue reported on code.google.com by edorf...@gmail.com on 12 Oct 2009 at 6:58

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
The distinction between Suggests, Recommends and Depends appears to be very 
blurred.

Original comment by graham.g...@gmail.com on 17 Nov 2009 at 4:36

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago
Should be fixed with r328 and r329.

Original comment by graham.g...@gmail.com on 17 Nov 2009 at 6:00