On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:04:41PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 19:00, Branden Robinson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:11:23PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 07:59, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > > Why is it *desirable* for libgl1 packages built from DRI CVS to satisfy > > > > this dependency? > > > > > > Because users of those packages would like to build something using > > > libGL sometimes. :) > > > > Do you have a stronger reason than that for me to violate Policy? > > > > > > > And I can't build libgl-dev packages from there either because GLw is > > > > > missing > > > > > > > > Do you know why it is missing? > > > > > > It's outside the scope of the DRI project so was deemed a waste of space > > > and build time there. > > > > Well, I'm tempted to say that this is your problem (or, more precisely, > > the problem of people who want to both use your DRI CVS snapshots and > > build GL-dependent packages). I really do not want to risk people > > building against unofficial libGL objects. > > > > They should probably learn to use debootstrap and chroot for building. > > I wasn't talking about building Debian packages, but never mind. I > didn't really expect cooperation from you, but I had to try... Is there a reason to be so snarky about this? Put yourself in my shoes, and see all the clueless bugs I get. Consider how damaging it is when careless developers build packages in a bad environment. Please, give me a specific use case and explain to me why I should ignore the Policy Manual in this regard. -- G. Branden Robinson | I must confess to being surprised Debian GNU/Linux | by the magnitude of incompatibility branden@debian.org | with such a minor version bump. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Manoj Srivastava
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature