On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:26:33PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:14:54AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Why is a pure virtual build-depends a serious bug? > > Could you please point out the section of policy? > > Forget the pure virtual bit - nothing in unstable provides libxaw-dev > any more. >
oookay.... so is the "correct" behaviour now, to replace libxaw-dev, with a specific version, eg libxaw6-dev ? Sfunny.. I thought my package ORIGINALLY did that, and then I got a "bug" filed against it a year or three back, that it should instead depend on the virtual package. Most irritating. Consistancy in policy should be a desirable feature.