unmerge 666510 thanks Hi,
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 01:43:24PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > Hi, > > El 31 de març de 2012 12:26, Aurelien Jarno <aurel...@aurel32.net> ha escrit: > > Given lm-sensors is completely useless on non Linux-kernel, I don't > > really see the point. The package is kept on non-Linux architectures > > just to avoid removing the build-deps in dozens of packages, to add it > > later when either support for other kernels is added to lm-sensors or > > when the non-Linux kernels start to provide access to sensors via their > > /sys compatibility layer. > > I'm afraid I don't understand your point. You're basically saying > that either [1] or [2] may happen, and that if [1] happens, then the > dependency needs to be removed, if [2] happens, then the dependency > needs to be removed, and until either of [1] or [2] happen, the > dependency needs to be removed anyway. I.e. you're saying the > dependency needs to be removed no matter if/when [1] or [2] happen. > > Additionally, there's [3] which is not something that can happen, but > a decision that has been discarded. If you apply solution [3], then > of course the situation is different, but you didn't say that you're > taking [3] into consideration. > > I can't make any sense of it. But maybe I'm just obtuse today. Is > there someone else who understands this reasoning? > Sorry I read the bug report to fast, and thought the dependency was on lm-sensors and not libsensors4. I am going to fix that in the next upload. Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120423170254.ga22...@volta.aurel32.net
