> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, joost witteveen wrote:
>
> > > So, what method do you prefer? Or do you have better ideas? How hard
> > > would it be to implement versioned Provides: in dpkg? Or are there
> > > other reasons not to implement it? Is solution 2) too kludgy?
> > I strongly prefer method 1. I really think dpkg should be improved,
> > but as that doesn't seem to happen any time soon, I don't think
> > method 2 will hurt in the mean time. Anyone else see any problems
> > with method 2?
>
> Better method: Remove the version from svgalib1g shlibs (as the other
> libc6 libraries have done). The version would be needed again if a
> new upstream release of svgalib with an incompatible library arrives, as
> this seems far from happening this would be a perfect solution for
> svgalib, IMO.
Why didn't I think of this?
Thanks!
--
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
$/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1
lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/)
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
