Re: The ghost of libc-dev
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it
> reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird
> situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package.
> The summary is this:
> *) The 'libc-dev' package is a pure virtual package, roughly meaning
> "provides the headers and symlinks for C library development".
> *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which
> needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation
> of having only a pure-virtual package.
Why is pure virtual bad? Why not fix the bugs that make it bad?
Hamish, feeling like a broken record.
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>