Re: imagemagick depends on libtiff3

[Philippe Troin <phil@fifi.org>]

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:00:08 PDT Randy Gobbel (gobbel@cogsci.ucsd.edu)
 wrote:

> This brings up something that been annoying me: I've run into this and similar
> problems two or three times now, where a package is placed onto the "stable"
> area before the packages it depends on.  This is a problem for obvious
> reasons--the package isn't really available as a "stable" package until all
> the other packages it requires are also considered stable.  There's no point
> in putting stuff you can't actually install into the directory.  I'd like to
> request that in the future, packages not be placed on "stable" until all the
> pieces are ready to go out the door.  Surely this can't be that difficult to
> manage.

Err, imagemagick has never been placed in the 'stable' tree. It used to be (and will be until the next version) in the non-free directory which has no distinction between stable and unstable.
Maybe we should address this...

Phil.