On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it > reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird > situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package. > > The summary is this: > > *) The 'libc-dev' package is a pure virtual package, roughly meaning > "provides the headers and symlinks for C library development". > > *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which > needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation > of having only a pure-virtual package.
I have a genuine question: Consider a -dev package that Depends on libc6-dev. Is there any drawback to make it Depends on libc-dev instead ? 1) libc6-dev is a purely virtual dependency on alpha and ia64. libc-dev is a purely virtual dependency evrywhere, but is it really worse ? 2) The 'Depends: libc6-dev' has no bearing on buildd, since a package providing libc6-dev is always installed as part of build-essential. So, am I overlooking something ? I am not objecting to make it depends on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' but I don't see the point. Thanks in advance for any enlightenment. -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]