On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0100, Sean Finney wrote: > On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > > Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for > > backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver, > > they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to > > debian/control; maybe it could be better phrased, since it would > > certainly work for self-built backports, or building on derivatives > > etc.? > > yes, think of a package that can build against libfooN or libfooN+1, but > only libfooN+1 is in unstable, and only libfooN is in stable. having a > Build-Depends: libfooN+1-dev | libfooN-dev would be a very natural thing > to do in this case. likewise in the case of a virtual libfoo-dev > libfooN-dev, which would add forward compatibility in the case of > libfooN+1-dev (providing a libfoo-dev). Hi Sean, If you have any suggested changes to the Policy patch which would explain this clearly, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature