On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:44:03 +0200 Jakub Wilk <jw...@debian.org> wrote:
> * Kan-Ru Chen <kos...@debian.org>, 2011-09-14, 11:29: > >> > >>That is, more or less, what's happening, so I'll move the bug to > >>libvte9. In case that takes a long time to fix should I manually > >>override the dependency? > > > >Yes you can, just put the right version in Depends. > > This is an excellent recipe to make the Release Team hate you, though. > > >However this means when building with older version of libvte one > >has to manually adjust the Depends field as well. > > Wait, you don't want to build your package against *older* versions. > And if you even can do that, then your build-depends is broken. > > What is troublesome in such case is building against a *newer* > version, with potentially different SONAME. That's why you should > never put shared libraries you're linking against explicitly in > Depends. If anything, use Breaks for this purpose. I agree, there's a stronger argument to leave roxterm alone than to try to work around someone else's bug. Anyone with access to roxterm 2.* should also easily be able to upgrade to unstable's vte. > That said, #641123 really looks like a serious bug in vte. Should I upgrade the report, do you think? In any case it might be a good idea to mark it as affects roxterm. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110914124457.01d57fae@junior
