Re: Status of Debian developers?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Status of Debian developers?
- From: Joel Klecker <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 07:10:26 -0800
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: Joel Klecker's message of "Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:28:01 -0800" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
At 22:01 +0100 1999-03-29, James Troup wrote:
Joel Klecker <email@example.com> 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