On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 12:40:54PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> Michel D?nzer <daenzer@debian.org> writes:
>
> >> James Troup, on IRC and a few of the porting lists, speculated that
> >> this is a buildd problem, and gave instructions for working around
> >> it.
>
> Eh, I didn't mean to give the impression that it was a buildd problem
> - I don't believe it is, not in the sense that the buildd software is
> responsible anyway.
Ah, sorry about that.
> > Isn't the problem that xlibs{,-dev} are now Architecture: all, and
> > their dependencies can't be satisfied on architectures where the
> > split libraries haven't been built yet?
>
> Yes; that and the fact that xfree86 has a circular build-depends on
> itself.
>
> I realise that the cicrcular build-depends is not trivial to fix and
> that the xlibs split is a once off thing, so it's easier to work
> around the problem which is what I meant when I said it wasn't your
> fault/problem.
Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Never attribute to malice that
Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained
branden@debian.org | by stupidity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Hanlon's Razor
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature