Re: is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?
From: Karl Chen <quarl@NOSPAM.quarl.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 12:51:58 -0700
Message-id: <[🔎] quack.20050718T1251.87br4zao4h@quack.cs.berkeley.edu>
Reply-to: quarl+dated+1122148019.68b021@nospam.quarl.org
References: <[🔎] quack.20050717T0114.87slydaly0@quack.cs.berkeley.edu> <[🔎] 20050717210004.GA21063@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

>>>>> On 2005-07-17 14:00 PDT, Matthew Woodcraft writes:

    Matthew> There is a lot of discussion of this question in bug
    Matthew> 119517 (where the conclusion reached was that this is
    Matthew> sometimes ok).

Wow, that was a long thread.  Thanks for the pointer.

I will file bugs if it there is no Recommends/Suggests and/or I
can't find previous discussion of the issue.

-- 
Karl 2005-07-18 12:46

Reply to:

References:
- is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?
  - From: Karl Chen <quarl@cs.berkeley.edu>
- Re: is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?
  - From: Matthew Woodcraft <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

Prev by Date: Re: debconf5 - videos of the talks and BOFs available
Next by Date: Re: Yet another g++ transition page
Previous by thread: Re: is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?
Next by thread: Re: is it a bug to not depend on a library package needed for some binary?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread