On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:57:22AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Bill Allombert writes: > > Debian GCC Maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> > > g++-3.3 > > g++-3.4 > > g++-4.0 > > g++-4.1 > > gcj > > gcj-4.0 > > gcj-4.1 > > java-gcj-compat > > libgcj-dev > > libgcj6-dev > > libgcj7-dev > > libstdc++5-3.3-dev > > libstdc++6-4.0-dev > > libstdc++6-4.1-dev > > libstdc++6-dev > > > > Debian GCC maintainers <debian-gcc@lists.debian.org> > > g++-2.95 > > libstdc++2.10-dev > > maybe the corresponding g++-X.Y and libstdc++-Z-X.Z-dev packages could > be solved by merging these packages. Anyway, these binaries are built > from the same source, so we should ot care-
Being built from the same source has no effect on apt and dpkg handling of circular dependencies. > I currently do not understand the java-gcj-compat / gcj-4.X relationship. java-gcj-compat is involved in a dependency loop with: antlr gjdoc kaffe kaffe-jthreads kaffe-pthreads libgnucrypto-java libjessie-java graph at http://debian.semistable.com/dot/libjessie-java_unstable.png gcj-4.X circular deps: gcj-4.0 <--> libgcj6-dev gcj <--> libgcj-dev gcj-4.1 <--> libgcj7-dev > > Debian OpenOffice Team <debian-openoffice@lists.debian.org> > > openoffice.org-common > > openoffice.org-core > > that's just a splitting into arch/indep packages. you sould not warn > about it. apt and dpkg do not handle them any specially, so I don't see why I should. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
