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

Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 12:05:39PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Genralize it past library packages and this isn't really much of an
> > option though. Something like debconf FE can break backwards
> > compatability and yet has no soname, unfortunatly.
> So why don't we give it a "soname" ? "Depends: debconf-1 (>= 1.0.24)", eg?

We're going to do just that once we rework debconf policy a bit. It will
start at debconf-2 though. 

However, not all packages should do that right off, and this new field
offers a good way to recover from lack of foresight.

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpIFwQaSIZEl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: