On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 02:30:32PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:29:36AM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 03:47:18PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > > > Two approaches to resolve this have been proposed: > > > > > > > > As far as I know, there should be patches in Ubuntu to build some of > > > > the packages you listed against xulrunner 1.9; I guess that would be > > > > the best solution. I'm not sure icedove / xulrunner 1.8 will be > > > > maintainable for a long period. > > > > > > > > I also wonder whether mozilla-bonobo can be dropped. > > > > > > After a bit more investigation it appears as if solution (2) > > > won't work, since iceape-dev itself depends on iceape-browser. > > > > Do you mean depends as in debian/control, or as in dropping the > > package dependency doesn't work? > > As in debian/control: > > Package: iceape-dev > [..] > Depends: iceape-browser (>= 1.1.14), iceape-browser (<= 1.1.14-1.1~), > iceape-dev-bin (>= 1.1.14), libnspr4-dev > > Or is the dependency not technically needed for the use cases, which > remain in the archive?
Most of the rdeps should only need headers and possibly a .a provided in the -dev-bin package. There shouldn't be anything needing iceape-browser files, but that's only an assumption. That's why I asked to check whether they build without iceape-browser installed. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org