Re: Packages removed from frozen
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Packages removed from frozen
- From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
- Date: 01 Mar 2000 13:42:15 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] u1hu2iq1qig.fsf@alice-whacker.mit.edu>
- In-reply-to: Manoj Srivastava's message of "09 Feb 2000 17:22:38 -0600"
- References: <20000128161610.A13321@xs4all.nl> <8766w1557j.fsf@raven.localnet> <87900wsu4l.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <20000207142942.A14269@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> <87emaoqq9n.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <20000208003751.A22760@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> <20000208215607.D8900@ecn.purdue.edu> <20000209132405.A10941@azure.humbug.org.au> <87og9qzjvo.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com> <20000209221100.B15122@azure.humbug.org.au> <87u2jiufk1.fsf@glaurung.green-gryphon.com>
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> Asking for dispensation for circular build depends was
> (perhaps a poor) attempt to ensure that people don't just declare a
> self build depends out of sloth; and to ensure that the packages
> properly get marked as potentially dangerous
Why dispensation? There is no prohibition of circular build depends,
and if you think there should be, then propose it on debian-policy.
Thomas
Reply to: