On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as
> a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb
> anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages aren't at the correct version,
> having a different gtk2 source package which compiles the .udeb (and
> nothing more--unless you need some -dev packages to be able to build
> the installer image) would seem to be the obvious solution.
Yes, we _do_ need a normal lib package and lib-dev package as we need
those to compile the cdebconf-gtk frontend against.
Having these packages conflict with the regular ones is not really an
option IMO. It would probably work for buildds, but it would make working
on the graphical installer on normal systems a pain.