| 1 |
On Monday 07 of November 2005 13:42 Paul Waring wrote: |
| 2 |
> If it's a commonly-encountered problem with a known solution (or at |
| 3 |
> least things you can try), why on earth wouldn't you want that in the |
| 4 |
> documentation? If it's not there, you're going to have more users on the |
| 5 |
> forums/IRC asking "why am I getting problem X?" (I've had circular |
| 6 |
> dependancy problems with python in the past) and you can't exactly tell |
| 7 |
> them to RTFM if there isn't one. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It doesn't have to be in the handbook itself, a separate document would |
| 10 |
> do, but if lots of people are experiencing similar problems it would be |
| 11 |
> sensible, at least in my opinion, to have some sort of written |
| 12 |
> documentation that they can look to. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You probably haven't read the whole thread. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The problem is that there are circular dependencies. This is caused by several |
| 17 |
packages from our tree depending on each other. We (the GDP) can't really |
| 18 |
provide a fix for such cases as they will randomly appear and disappear as |
| 19 |
the tree changes and are quite unpredictable. If an experienced user needs to |
| 20 |
do such an advanced install, (s)he will most probably know how to get over |
| 21 |
circular dependencies. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
WKR, |
| 24 |
-jkt |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives