Michael Hanke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks. I did'nt realize this fact. So if I get you right the solution > would be to get rid of the debconf-2.0 dependency. If I do so lintian is > fine, but I guess Joey Hess is not:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html > (and follow-ups) > This post was the reason why I included this dependency in the first > place. > As the debconf-2.0 package's purpose is to allow transition to cdebconf, > is depending on cdebconf explicitely as an alternative to debconf an > option? How compatible are those 'alternatives' currently. I hate to say this, since actually implementing it is a lot of work in supporting programs like debhelper, but if the debconf-2.0 pseudopackage was introduced prior to a new feature in the debconf interface there needs to be a debconf-2.1 or debconf-3.0 as well. If cdebconf implements that protocol, it can provide that pseudopackage as well. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
