Re: Dependency problem and apt-get
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:10:07PM +0100, Richard Kimber wrote:
> I don't know if this makes any sense, but perhaps there's a case for
> there to be a small 'dummy' file that could satisfy the dependencies
> for optional components of a package. But then, I don't know anything
> about how apt detects dependency issues or, indeed about how packages
> are constructed.
This is possible in the general case (see equivs), but is impractical
here, as the fake package would have to actually contain a fake
libaspell with the correct symbols available. Otherwise, as I said, the
binary will simply fail to load.
I think you'd be better off rebuilding bluefish from source without
aspell support.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: