[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rahul Jain) writes: > maybe there should be meta-packages for packages that have embedded version > numbers like that.
In the general case, yes. In this case, there is no need for one, since the package in question is build-essential, and so need not be listed in a build dependency. I've run into a number of cases where the build dependency for some other library that is not build-essential is tied to a specific version. It is hard to tell quickly if those are "mistakes", or if the package really depends on a particular version. So, for now, such packages get marked as 'failed' and left to rot until/unless they are needed to fill some dependency... > Or maybe the build-dep on libstdc++2.10-dev indicates that > the package relies on some g++ brokenness ;) Heh. That would be frightening. So far, the fix for all the packages I have tried is to just ignore that build dependency and build against a current version of libstdc++. Bdale
