On Tue, Dec 02, 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote: > Regarding the -dev package names, I'm personally OK if you don't > introduce transitional packages and just add Provides: fields, because > AFAICS only 2 packages in the archive have a versioned build-dependency > on imagemagick.
Concerning Provides, I need to point a slightly related issue which is that libmagick++-dev is provided by graphicsmagick-libmagick-dev-compat in unstable and not in experimental. This means that graphicsmagick-libmagick-dev-compat and imagemagick need to move together into unstable and into testing. (I don't think it's possible to install graphicsmagick-libmagick-dev-compat/unstable with imagemagick/experimental alone though.) > Does this sound doable from your side? In particular, using Provides is > much easier than using transitional packages, so it should be less > effort for you. (Unless somebody has spotted that it won't work, in that > case please speak up!) I don't like Provides because they break versionned deps, but you point that out already; I find real packages are much easier to get right and reserve less surprizes; but you point out that a small number of build-deps are actually versionned, so I guess that's fine. I didn't look into the specifics, but I think the backports people would appreciate it if it was possible to have build-dependencies which work in squeeze and lenny. Thanks, -- Loïc Minier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]