On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 11:33:20PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I think what would elegantly solve this problem would be a notion of an > optional build dependency, which would be installed by the autobuilders if it > is available, but if it is not, the build could continue successfully. I don't like this because then it's not obvious which build-deps were actually in place when the package was built. For instance, let's say vim had a conditional build-dependency on xlibs-dev; it would be hit or miss as to whether you had X support on the resulting packages, depending on who built it. I think it's much better to explicitly list architectures that have some build-depencies missing (or unique). In my opinion the situation on point is a corner case. -- G. Branden Robinson | Damnit, we're all going to die; Debian GNU/Linux | let's die doing something *useful*! branden@debian.org | -- Hal Clement, on comments that http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | space exploration is dangerous
Attachment:
pgpgOjOqK8wpO.pgp
Description: PGP signature