On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 01:30:44AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote: > I'd be tempted to agree with you, except... > > I've spent quite a bit of time recently dealing with packages that include an > explicit build dependency on "libstdc++2.10-dev". This is not necessary since > it is a dependency for an item in build-essential, and is in fact called out > explicitly in the build-essential documentation. It breaks the ability to > build the package with gcc-3.0. That will matter to everyone eventually, and > matters to hppa and ia64 right now.
maybe there should be meta-packages for packages that have embedded version numbers like that. Or maybe the build-dep on libstdc++2.10-dev indicates that the package relies on some g++ brokenness ;) -- -> -/- - Rahul Jain - -\- <- -> -\- http://linux.rice.edu/~rahul -=- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -/- <- -> -/- "I never could get the hang of Thursdays." - HHGTTG by DNA -\- <- |--|--------|--------------|----|-------------|------|---------|-----|-| Version 11.423.999.220020101.23.50110101.042 (c)1996-2000, All rights reserved. Disclaimer available upon request.
