On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:39:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:50:26PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > However, as read, this would make little or not sense as to why one cannot > > (or even should not) use libc-dev instead of libc*-dev unless you need a > > versioned dependancy - since all libc*-dev should Provide: libc-dev, and > > there should be exactly one that applies to any given arch, there is no > > "preference" that would make any sense for all arches. > > As a technicality, depending on libc-dev is wrong because there is > always *one* *specific* real package that fulfills the proper > relationship on each architecture. You cannot substitute a different > -dev package for libc6.1 on an alpha and get correct results. What about erasing the dependency totally? From the list of build-essential_7 : BEGIN LIST OF PACKAGES libc6-dev [!alpha !hurd-i386] | libc0.3-dev [hurd-i386] | libc6.1-dev [alpha] | libc-dev Jesse -- Jesus Climent | Unix System Admin | Helsinki, Finland. web: www.hispalinux.es/~data/ | pumuki.hispalinux.es ------------------------------------------------------ Please, encrypt mail sent to me: GnuPG ID: 86946D69 FP: BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 ------------------------------------------------------ Registered Linux user #66350 Debian 3.0 & Linux 2.4.20 It's sex! Sex is the game! Marriage is the penalty. --Andrew Wyke (Sleuth)
Attachment:
pgp_5Ryp6mT4a.pgp
Description: PGP signature