Re: Depends clause of control
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 07:04:50AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-26 at 21:59 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Sure, then you are in the advi example, not the spamoracle one, and -custom is
> > indeed preferable. I think the policy mentions something of this kind.
> > Now, the idea thing is to move the c++ bindings in their own binary package,
> > and you fall again in the spamoracle example.
> Yes I agree. However, properly this would require about
> 20-30 separate packages. And that requires documenting
> and testing each component, as well as the Debian
> packaging scripts.
It is not nearly as complicated as you think, the leaf ones will pull in the
depenecy chain, and any major breakage will be seen quicker than you think.
> I have enough trouble getting just ONE package
> to work :)
Fair enough, but keep this in mind for a later time.