[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#503712: the gs-common problem

As promised on IRC, the only way to end the madness of my mails on the
subject is to either say "no, no dependency funnies, we want .config
hacks" or "fixing dependencies is better than .config hacks", or
something entirely different, so here is some more data:

Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> I'll check the debs somewhat, too, but if we think that ghostscript
> depending on gs-common and living with the circular depends solves the
> problem, this might be a more conservative way to fix this for lenny.

Using debdiff, the only file differences (aside from a few shlibs bumps,
ordering, and minor size differences, the control fields matched up) are
- one pdf in one package (geda-symbols) changed the paper format and
  then dropped below the compression threshold (building in a chroot?),
- the doc package of log4c had a couple of more symlinked manpages,
  apparently due to changes in the manpage generating tex file.

So IMO dropping ghostscript-x from gs-common build-deps looks reasonably
safe as in not changing anything rebuild-wise.

Kind regards

Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/

Reply to: