[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Status of Debian developers?

At 22:01 +0100 1999-03-29, James Troup wrote:
Joel Klecker <jk@espy.org> writes:

The ldd-based dpkg-shlibdeps is braindamaged in a major way.

All based on the assumption that indirect dependencies are not only
allowed, but a good thing.  Last time I suggested such a thing, Manoj
and Christian beat me about the head till I shut up (see d-policy

Do you have any idea of approximately when or what the subject was? I have gone through the index and haven't seen an obvious subject.

I am confused, are you saying indirect dependencies are a bad thing and agreeing with what I wrote about ldd-based dpkg-shlibdeps? or are you saying they are a good thing?
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)                    Debian GNU/Linux Developer
<URL:mailto:jk@espy.org>                 <URL:mailto:espy@debian.org>
<URL:http://web.espy.org/>               <URL:http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: