SDL producing bogus dependencies or packages misusing SDL?
I wanted to verify this. I've been looking at a number of packages
which have picked up dependencies on libartsc0, libasound2, libaudio2,
libaudiofile0, libsed0, libjpeg62, libpng12-0, and many others, without
actually build-depending on any of the corresponding dev packages.
The common factor is that they depend on libsdl-image1.2, libsdl-mixer1.2,
and/or libsdl1.2debian. Clearly they're suffering from recursive library
dependency disease.
The question is this: is this due to some script in the SDL packages? They're
complex enough that I couldn't actually tell. The alternative possibility
is of course that each of these packages generated the bad recursive list
on its own, which is just as likely. I'm wondering where to file the bugs.
:-)
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/
Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder...
Get me out of this fascist nightmare!
Reply to: