Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:43:17PM -0800, Philip Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:26:33PM +, 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]
Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:26:33PM +, 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.
Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:48:54PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: >> Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >> > severity 169969 serious >> Bug#169969: acfax: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev >> Severity set to `serious'. >> >> > severity 170006 serious >> Bug#170006: emacs20: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev >> Severity set to `serious'. > > Why is a pure virtual build-depends a serious bug? > Could you please point out the section of policy? > > > We've had this discussion before (in #169969) and you didn't convince > me. The problem now is that there isn't any libxaw-dev virtual package at all any more. I retitled the bugs also, to reflect this fact. -- Daniel Schepler "Please don't disillusion me. I [EMAIL PROTECTED]haven't had breakfast yet." -- Orson Scott Card
Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:14:54AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:48:54PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > severity 169969 serious > > Bug#169969: acfax: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev > > Severity set to `serious'. > > > > > severity 170006 serious > > Bug#170006: emacs20: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev > > Severity set to `serious'. > > 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. xfree86 (4.2.1-12) unstable; urgency=high [...] * Kill off libxaw-dev virtual package per discussion on debian-devel mailing list. - debian/control: + libxaw6-dev now conflicts with and replaces libxaw7-dev instead of libxaw-dev + libxaw6-dev no longer provides libxaw-dev + libxaw7-dev now conflicts with and replaces libxaw6-dev instead of libxaw-dev + libxaw7-dev no longer provides libxaw-dev [...] -- Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 30 Sep 2003 15:34:48 -0500 Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Processed: libxaw-dev is long gone
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 03:48:54PM -0600, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > severity 169969 serious > Bug#169969: acfax: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev > Severity set to `serious'. > > > severity 170006 serious > Bug#170006: emacs20: Pure virtual build-depends on libxaw-dev > Severity set to `serious'. Why is a pure virtual build-depends a serious bug? Could you please point out the section of policy? We've had this discussion before (in #169969) and you didn't convince me. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
