Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field

To: "Debian Developers" <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
From: Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:43:24 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 20150525134324.1482.65684@hoothoot>
Mail-followup-to: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>, "Debian Developers" <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>,
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20150525123446.5519.36311@bastian.jones.dk>
References: <[🔎] 1772553625.2302539.1432538577145.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <[🔎] 20150525113913.1482.92934@hoothoot> <[🔎] 20150525123446.5519.36311@bastian.jones.dk>

Hi,

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2015-05-25 14:34:46)
> Both above approaches are suitable only when in control of the dependent
> package as well.

why?

cheers, josch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
  - From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

References:
- Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
  - From: Gianfranco Costamagna <costamagnagianfranco@yahoo.it>
- Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
  - From: Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org>
- Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
  - From: Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk>

Prev by Date: Re: please use signed git commits (and tags)
Next by Date: Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
Previous by thread: Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
Next by thread: Re: Proposal, a Build-Depends-Optional field
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread