On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:37:41PM +0100, Thomas Weber wrote: > > Even if it isn't there, it will be _pulled_ in, because it is the > > first alternate dependency for lapack3-dev, unless it is in > > Build-Conflicts. So, please remove it completely from Build-Depends, > > and add it to Build-conflicts to ensure it isn't used at all. > > This sounds like a problem in lapack3-dev. Sorry, but going down that > path means that every package in need of lapack3-dev must add a > build-conflict for a package it doesn't pull in itself. This sounds like > a fix for a problem applied at the wrong level (I may be wrong, of > course). There is no other way; the reason why this was avoidable earlier was because your .dsc had the Build-Depends in the same order in which you specified in the control file. However, due to dpkg-dev changes, the depends are now sorted to alphabetical order. Yes, it would be nice to reverse the order of lapack3's dependency to read refblas3-dev | atlas3-base-dev, rather than the other way around. I'll try to take this up. But please do consider adding a temporary Build-conflict. (Of course, the decision is yours! :-) FWIW, I am forced to add Build-Conflict for my package because of issues with atlas2 being present in the build, but that doesn't apply to octave2.9. Thanks! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature