Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Michael Hanke <michael.hanke@gmail.com> writes:
> Thanks. I did'nt realize this fact. So if I get you right the solution
> would be to get rid of the debconf-2.0 dependency. If I do so lintian is
> fine, but I guess Joey Hess is not:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html
> (and follow-ups)
> This post was the reason why I included this dependency in the first
> place.
> As the debconf-2.0 package's purpose is to allow transition to cdebconf,
> is depending on cdebconf explicitely as an alternative to debconf an
> option? How compatible are those 'alternatives' currently.
I hate to say this, since actually implementing it is a lot of work in
supporting programs like debhelper, but if the debconf-2.0 pseudopackage
was introduced prior to a new feature in the debconf interface there needs
to be a debconf-2.1 or debconf-3.0 as well. If cdebconf implements that
protocol, it can provide that pseudopackage as well.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: