On Sun, 2016-03-20 at 12:39 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > The Wanderer writes ("Re: Possible MBF: Packages depending on iceweasel but not firefox/firefox-esr"):
> > >
> > > Now, one thing which seems like it _could_ fix this without requiring a
> > > MBF would be for firefox and firefox-esr to acquire 'Provides:
> > > iceweasel'. That seems like a misuse of the system to me, however, and a
> > > suboptimal solution at best.
> > I don't understand what is wrong with this approach. It seems
> > perfectly sensible to me.
> Leaving aside any other reasons: many packages have a versioned
> dependency on iceweasel, and we don't have versioned provides.
[...]
Yes we do, since dpkg 1.18.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part