Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:43:17PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote:
> 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 ?
Yes.
> 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.
Consistency in bug filers is, I fear, impossible. :) Sometimes they're
just wrong. I think policy has been fairly consistent in recommending
that packages should depend at least on "real-package |
virtual-package", although that's mostly to help dselect etc.; to my
knowledge it says little about build-depends.
Anyway, build-dependency changes caused by package rearrangements are
really outside the domain of policy.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: