On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:47:57PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:18:38AM +0930, Ron wrote:
I think you've mistaken what I've said, and/or what is actually in the
wx-common package.
Yes, I was mistaken about the contents of wx-common.
I had looked at the
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the sermon.
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 06:25:29PM +0930, Ron wrote:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:47:57PM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
The main point, however, is that it is a disservice to users to hide
the .m4 file -- not to mention the man page.
Who said anything
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 08:57:21AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Yes, of course. I know about common packages and I wasn't arguing
that wx-common is a bad thing. Only that the -dev packages should
depend on it.
But that is the whole crux of the matter, they _don't_ depend on it.
It's not a
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:18:38AM +0930, Ron wrote:
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 08:11:10AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I'd ask you to reconsider adding a dependency from both -dev packages
to wx-common.
In a narrow sense, you are right to say that there is no dependency
Dear Ron,
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 12:36:07PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
Since there doesn't seem to be any issue that requires a change to the
package here, I'm closing this now without further action.
I'd ask you to reconsider adding a dependency from both -dev packages
to
Hi Steve,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 08:11:10AM -0500, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
I'd ask you to reconsider adding a dependency from both -dev packages
to wx-common.
In a narrow sense, you are right to say that there is no dependency in
that you *could* build wxWidget-using code without either
6 matches
Mail list logo
