Bug#511173: marked as done (libdrm-dev: dependence of libdrm-intel1)
Your message dated Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:04:10 +0100
with message-id <1231621450.21747.9.camel@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr>
and subject line Re: Bug#511173: libdrm-dev: dependence of libdrm-intel1
has caused the Debian Bug report #511173,
regarding libdrm-dev: dependence of libdrm-intel1
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
511173: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=511173
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: libdrm-dev
Version: 2.4.3+git+20090105+a8c5480-1
Severity: minor
Hi,
why libdrm-dev is dependent of libdrm-intel1? I do not use Intel chip.
Regards
Tomasz
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (101, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.28-git7-1-debug (PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=pl_PL.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=pl_PL.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages libdrm-dev depends on:
ii libdrm-inte 2.4.3+git+20090105+a8c5480-1 Userspace interface to Intel-speci
ii libdrm2 2.4.3+git+20090105+a8c5480-1 Userspace interface to kernel rend
libdrm-dev recommends no packages.
libdrm-dev suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 02:12 +0100, arctgx wrote:
> why libdrm-dev is dependent of libdrm-intel1? I do not use Intel chip.
>
that's very much irrelevant... closing the bug (for one thing,
libdrm-dev contains libdrm_intel.so; libdrm-intel1 contains the
destination of that symlink).
Cheers,
Julien
--- End Message ---
Reply to: