Re: again: inconsistency at the cmxa level
Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:04:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> The consensus on Build-Depends has always been that they should be
>> deterministic and Build-Depends on provided packages are generaly not.
> Well, the way we do it, there can be only one package that provides said
> virtual package, so the autobuilders could perfectly install it if they
> weren't so broken. But then elmo told me "this is the way it is and it will
> not be fixed" over 2 years ago now, so i have little hope of the autobuilders
> doing the sensible thing.
>> Since the apt team does not seem to accept the trivial patch for the
>> problem with uniqe provides you have to avoid them. That means
> Nope, it works fine, is an elegant solution to a real problem, and since there
> is an upgrade each year only or so, the autobuilder maintainer can fix it by
> hand in their control file or whatever.
No, the autobuilders (sbuild) is realy not to blame for unique
provides. It is an apt-get bug.
>> providing a dummy package instead of Provides or Build-Depending on
>> the actual package.
> No, this is ugly. Why is it that people always prefer ugly workarounds over
> real fixes ?
Because we want packages to build now and get sarge released instead
of fighting for another 2 years with elmo and keybuk. As you said:
"this is the way it is and it will not be fixed"
Even if you get things fixed the fix would probably not make it into
sarge and the bug would still remain there.
> Sven Luther