Frank Küster wrote: > Hi, > >> Your package recommends prosper (> 1.00.4+cvs.2004.03.29-2) which is not yet >> available in unstable. > > Yes, we asume that the next version of prosper will have texlive as > alternative dependencies, then it can be used with texlive, too. This > is not a bug in texlive, the versioned recommends is just an other way > to say "we want to depend on it, but depending it would make us > uninstallable because prosper is not yet fixed". Recommending a not installable package doesn't bring you much, though I can understand your reasoning. I hope this gets fixed soon as it's only confusing this way... > So I think there is no bug in texlive; if we'd drop the version from > the recommends, prosper would still be uninstallable due to the prosper > bug #349670. Recommending a package which is not available is an important bug for a package in main for the moment. The fix may well be in another package though... Cheers Luk -- Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature