Made many changes to setup.html

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 08:30:37AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf@redhat.com>
>> >I've altered some things (mainly cosmetic or trivial). One in particular
>> >was the recommendation to include bar as a dependency if you directly
>> >require foo, and know that foo requires bar.
>>
>> You misinterpreted what I was saying.  I was saying that you should
>> never rely on the fact that libncurses pulls in gettext if your package
>> depends directly on gettext.  You changed the wording to mean something
>> else.  I've put it back to my original meaning, which reflects questions
>> that have been raised here.
>
>And I'm saying that that is the incorrect thing to do.

No you're not.  You're not reading what I wrote.  I refuse to believe
that you would actually say that package maintainer a should rely on
package maintainer b to ensure that some of package a's direct
dependencies are met.

I am saying that if the package layout looks like this:

    a
   / \
  b    c
      / \
     b   d

you should never drop b from a's dependencies:

    a
     \
       c
      / \
     b   d

just because you happen to know that c uses b.

I can't imagine why you'd argue with that.  I assume that you aren't
actually arguing with it.

cgf