Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is your point? The .deb packaging of source doesn't deal with source > dependencies any better than the current source package.
Sure it does. You put the dependencies on the Depends: line of the control file. > > > There is no current declared method for this, and that makes > > > implimentation difficult, specially when most developers have what > > > they need for their packages and don't typically think about the > > > problem any further than that. > > Please don't blame the developers for not using a system which hasn't > > been designed or implemented. That sort of thing is unecessarily > > dogmatic. > I don't know where you got this from. "... specially when most developers have what they need for their packages and don't typically think about the problem further than that." > I was under the impression that I was discusing what might be done > with the current source package format. I see no blame intended > in what I wrote. Why must all discusions of this type necessarily > degenerate into name calling? Good question. I think part of the problem is ambiguity. Another part is misunderstandings. [These sometimes overlap, and sometimes don't.] -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]