Re: gconf transition
On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:10 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 09 janvier 2006 à 15:45 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > Linking indirect dependency isn't a good thing, but not linking
> > to them isn't magicly going to fix bugs like this.
>
> How so? Please show me a case where the bug will still be here.
>
> > You should _never_ exclude anything for the calculation of the
> > dependencies, because it will result in such errors. Even if you
> > think some other dependency will (now) take care of this for you
> > doesn't mean you shouldn't have a depends on it.
>
> The gconf-sanity-check functionality is optional. As such, its
Why is gconf-sanity-check optional? It seems pretty vital to me.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
"Thinking men cannot be ruled."
Ayn Rand
Reply to: