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 archives).
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/>