On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:43:17PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > 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 ?
Yes. > 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. Consistency in bug filers is, I fear, impossible. :) Sometimes they're just wrong. I think policy has been fairly consistent in recommending that packages should depend at least on "real-package | virtual-package", although that's mostly to help dselect etc.; to my knowledge it says little about build-depends. Anyway, build-dependency changes caused by package rearrangements are really outside the domain of policy. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]