Re: JOEL BAKER, STOP TELLING PEOPLE TO DEPEND ON LIBC-DEV *INSTEAD* OF LIBC6-DEV
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:50:26PM -0600, Brother Joel Baker preached da werd, yo:
> However, as read, this would make little or not sense as to why one cannot
> (or even should not) use libc-dev instead of libc*-dev unless you need a
> versioned dependancy - since all libc*-dev should Provide: libc-dev, and
> there should be exactly one that applies to any given arch, there is no
> "preference" that would make any sense for all arches.
Because, when you have multiple packages providing libc-dev, apt stops
and says "Shit! Which one should I install?". Your build thus fails.
> And that's a "Warning", which would match the 'should' clause in 7.4, which
> all makes sense - until you throw in Branden's claim that this utterly
> breaks installation. What I'm asking is why, if Policy 7.4 says 'should'
> and if there is no rational default for selecting a 'real' version in the
> presence of more than one (which should never happen in the first place, in
> this particular instance), installation breaks.
Considering you're confusing buildd's, you *REALLY* *should* do this.
--
Daniel Stone <daniel@raging.dropbear.id.au> <dstone@kde.org>
Developer - http://kopete.kde.org, http://www.kde.org
Proof BitMover are community-focussed:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103384262016750&w=2
Reply to: