On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 08:48:18AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 05:36:01PM +0100, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > > > i'd like that libc6.1-dbg as well as libc6-dbg and libc0.3-dbg > > > > provided libc-dbg virtual package. > > > > Why? Nothing should depend on these packages, AFAIK... > > > a dependency maybe not, but IMHO libfoo-dbg should suggest libc-dbg. > > making a suggestion for libc6-dbg | libc6.1-dbg | libc0.3-dbg is a > > hack. > > I don't think that it should really recommend this. The average person > doing debugging doesn't really have a strong need to dig through glibc > internals. > as packager, i'd like to be able to choose whether or not libc-dbg is required, recommended, suggested or whatever. if libc-dbg virtual package does not exist i have no chance at all.
-----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]