On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:09:09PM +0100, Sean Finney wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 18:22 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Yes, this might need rewording.  Some people claimed it was useful for
> > backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver,
> > they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to
> > debian/control; maybe it could be better phrased, since it would
> > certainly work for self-built backports, or building on derivatives
> > etc.?
> 
> yes, think of a package that can build against libfooN or libfooN+1, but
> only libfooN+1 is in unstable, and only libfooN is in stable.  having a
> Build-Depends: libfooN+1-dev | libfooN-dev would be a very natural thing
> to do in this case.  likewise in the case of a virtual libfoo-dev 
>  libfooN-dev, which would add forward compatibility in the case of
> libfooN+1-dev (providing a libfoo-dev).

Hi Sean,

If you have any suggested changes to the Policy patch which would explain
this clearly, that would be much appreciated.


Thanks,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to