On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:39:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 05:50:26PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > > If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the > > > default to satisfy a particular dependency on a virtual package, you > > > should list the real package as an alternative before the virtual > > > one. > > > 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. > > As a technicality, depending on libc-dev is wrong because there is always > *one* *specific* real package that fulfills the proper relationship on > each architecture. You cannot substitute a different -dev package for > libc6.1 on an alpha and get correct results. Er. If that's true, then why have a libc-dev virtual package at all? Granted, depending on: libc6-dev | libc6.1-dev | libc0.2-dev | libc12-dev | libc4-dev would certainly work (for all variants of libc I'm aware of right now, anyway) - but would be a bit fugly. If folks really aren't supposed to use libc-dev to mean 'the proper libc for the current arch', maybe a substvar would resolve this? Depends: ${libc-dev:Depends} ... -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Attachment:
pgpnLIQzjMxBm.pgp
Description: PGP signature