On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Joel Aelwyn wrote: > So, while discussing a bug in a -dev with the maintainer, recently, it > reminded me to review an old thread from d-devel regarding the weird > situation with libc-dev as a pure virtual package. > > The summary is this: > > *) The 'libc-dev' package is a pure virtual package, roughly meaning > "provides the headers and symlinks for C library development". > > *) The standard way of doing this today is to have a -dev package which > needs libc headers Depend on 'libc6-dev | libc-dev' to avoid the situation > of having only a pure-virtual package.
Why is pure virtual bad? Why not fix the bugs that make it bad? Hamish, feeling like a broken record. -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
