Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Marc Espie (espienerim.net)
Date: Wed Dec 17 2014 - 09:15:00 CST
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 05:37:57AM -0500, thevoidopenmailbox.ORG wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:30:32 +0100 Marc Espie <espienerim.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 05:41:27PM -0500, thevoidopenmailbox.ORG wrote:
> > > this seems to print the packages in the order they need to be installed for
> > > dependencies, is this always the case?
> > yes. read the code.
> > It's based on *-dir-depends, which shows the full set of dependency pairs,
> > and that goes thru tsort.
> > I should actually document this, as it is useful and won't ever change.
> thanks, that answered my question even though i asked it wrong. i actually
> meant to ask 'will this always' or 'is this the intended'. i hope to make
> my questions relevant/useful.
> i admit i didn't read the code this time, since my question was more about
> intent. if something is undocumented i don't always expect that the code
> will remain the same (although i guess i could have checked it for relevant
> comments). is this a reasonable assumption?
> otherwise, reading the code IS usually best practice, not only for the sake
> of the devs, but it's better than waiting for answers that may never come.
> (to be clear, that is just an observation, not a complaint. i recall some
> documentation years ago that said "... unix users: you are on your own, but
> that's probably how you like it anyway.")
No, no, you're perfectly right, this should be documented. And yes, I
answered partially in an ambiguous way. So reading the code shows this to
be always the case... but it's definitely not enough.
As you said, it *is* the intent, and I'll rework the documentation slightly
to make this apparent in the near future.