On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 05:06:03PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 16 May 2006 10:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > My point really was that it's silly to drop the graphical installer as > > a target for Etch if you need to compile differently for gtk-dfb > > anyway; so if the regular gtk2 packages aren't at the correct version, > > having a different gtk2 source package which compiles the .udeb (and > > nothing more--unless you need some -dev packages to be able to build > > the installer image) would seem to be the obvious solution. > > Yes, we _do_ need a normal lib package and lib-dev package as we need > those to compile the cdebconf-gtk frontend against. > Having these packages conflict with the regular ones is not really an > option IMO. It would probably work for buildds, but it would make working > on the graphical installer on normal systems a pain.
Who said they need to conflict? In fact, there already is a package 'libgtk+2.0-directfb-dev' which you can install concurrently with libgtk2.0-dev. There's no reason why another version (which would do what you need it to do) couldn't be installed concurrently with the other two variants. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]