On 2017-10-15 Ross Vandegrift <r...@kallisti.us> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 01:20:05PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > Ross, could you apply and push the attached patch?
[...] > 2) Upstream doesn't really support builds against part of EFL (and > hasn't since the library merge before 1.8). I think we generally ought > to avoid supporting scenarios that upstream doesn't. > Instead, what if all of the -dev packages were merged into > libefl-all-dev? Sample patch is attached. It's mildly tested: > enlightenment from experimental builds, and the resulting Depends look > correct. What do you think? Hello, I agree that it probably is not a wise use of resources to try to support this szenario if upstream does not. I have not yet read over the patch in detail, I just have three quick notes: Priority: extra is no more, please use optional. The following packages have never been present in stable (or even sid), so there is no need for dummy packages: libector-dev libelementary-dev libelocation-dev libelput-dev libelua-dev libemile-dev libeolian-dev libephysics-dev libefl-all-dev needs Breaks/Replaces for both dropped (list above) and turned-into-dummpy packages. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'