On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:19:51PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 16-05-2005 22:06, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 07:03:28PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > >> * libgd-noxpm-perl (built from exact same source) is in sarge. > > > > > > Eh, why aren't both packages actually built from the same source package > > then? If they are two variants of the same package, they should be built > > from the same source. > > Because build-dependencies are not equal.
Surely you can use the union of build dependencies, and have the right options to configure for both builds to get the right result? There should be no technical reason why this is not possible. > > Since both packages are obsolete though, I don't think it's worth fixing > > this now. Fwiw, I couldn't find any reverse depends on either of those > > packages, not even in unstable, so why have these two packages in sarge > > anyway? > > How did you check? With the reverse-dependency check of melanie, the ftp-master tool to remove packages. On merkel, 'melanie -R -n libgd-perl' (source package based). > A quick look using aptitude interactively seems to show that the > following packages depend, require or suggest libgd-perl: > > ipac-ng Not in Sarge, in unstable: just a recommends > diablo Not in Sarge, in unstable: just a suggests > libtemplate-perl Only recommends, not depends. > remstats Depends: libgd-gd1perl | libgd-gd2-perl | libgd-perl, so gd2 satisfies this too. So, it seems to me this package can safely be removed, and bugs filed on all depending/recommending/suggesting packages to drop the (co-)dependency on libgd-perl. --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]