Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
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