[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: svgalib-dummy again

> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
> > > So, what method do you prefer? Or do you have better ideas? How hard
> > > would it be to implement versioned Provides: in dpkg? Or are there
> > > other reasons not to implement it? Is solution 2) too kludgy?
> > I strongly prefer method 1. I really think dpkg should be improved,
> > but as that doesn't seem to happen any time soon, I don't think
> > method 2 will hurt in the mean time. Anyone else see any problems
> > with method 2?
>  Better method: Remove the version from svgalib1g shlibs (as the other
> libc6 libraries have done). The version would be needed again if a
> new upstream release of svgalib with an incompatible library arrives, as
> this seems far from happening this would be a perfect solution for
> svgalib, IMO.

Why didn't I think of this?

joost witteveen, joostje@debian.org
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: