Possible mass filing of bugs: don't use libxaw-dev

[Daniel Schepler <schepler@math.berkeley.edu>]

I'm planning to file bugs against any packages which specify
libxaw-dev in their Build-Depends.  This is because this allows
compiling significantly differing packages within the constraints of
the Build-Depends, so they need to be tightened.

After a quick scan through the Sources file for the main section, the
packages affected include:

acfax, awe, emacs20, exim, gnushogi, hanterm-classic, hanterm-xf,
imaze, isdnutils, jnethack, kdrill, mc, mowitz, nas, nethack, pixmap,
procmeter, procmeter3, siag, snake4, t1lib, twpsk, xbill, xcb,
xdvik-ja, xemacs21, xemeraldia, xengine, xfaces, xipmsg, xitalk,
xkeycaps, xmon, xmotd, xonix, xpaint, xpcd, xsysinfo, xtide, xwave,
youbin, zephyr

Packages which specify libxaw7-dev|libxaw-dev, which should work for
autobuilders but still allows too much freedom for building the
packages locally:

acm4, apmd, ghostview, groff, kinput2, kterm, seyon, tetex-bin, xbvl,
xruskb

This list doesn't include any old packages which might exist, which
still Build-Depend on xlib6g-dev but link against libxaw.

Honestly, I can't figure out how this happened.  I can't remember
there ever being a libxaw-dev package, nor any time when there was
only one package providing libxaw-dev.  Maybe somebody could enlighten
me?
-- 
Daniel Schepler              "Please don't disillusion me.  I
schepler@math.berkeley.edu    haven't had breakfast yet."
                                 -- Orson Scott Card