Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
- To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
- Cc: Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>, schepler@math.berkeley.edu, Paul Slootman <paul@debian.org>, Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org>, Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>, "Mark W. Eichin xpaint #170000" <eichin@thok.org>, Brian Mays <brian@debian.org>, Karl Soderstrom <ks@debian.org>, Philip Brown <pbrown@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
- From: Philip Brown <phil@bolthole.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:43:17 -0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040108214317.A18721@bolthole.com>
- Reply-to: Philip Brown <phil@bolthole.com>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20040106232633.GG12258@riva.ucam.org>; from cjwatson@debian.org on Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:26:33PM +0000
- References: <87isjp3tvt.fsf@frobnitz.ddts.net> <[🔎] handler.s.C.107342511427570.transcript@bugs.debian.org> <[🔎] 20040106221454.GA13481@cloud.net.au> <[🔎] 20040106232633.GG12258@riva.ucam.org>
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:26:33PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:14:54AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > Why is a pure virtual build-depends a serious bug?
> > Could you please point out the section of policy?
>
> Forget the pure virtual bit - nothing in unstable provides libxaw-dev
> any more.
>
oookay.... so is the "correct" behaviour now, to replace libxaw-dev, with
a specific version, eg libxaw6-dev ?
Sfunny.. I thought my package ORIGINALLY did that, and then I got a "bug"
filed against it a year or three back, that it should instead depend on the
virtual package. Most irritating. Consistancy in policy should be a
desirable feature.
Reply to: