On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 09:46:03AM -0500, Adam C Powell IV wrote: > In a post to this list about a year ago, someone suggested that complex > dependencies such as "(A & B) | C" be handled with: "A | C, B | C". Now > this generates a lintian error: > > E: petsc2.1.1-dev: package-has-a-duplicate-relation blas-dev | > atlas2-base-dev, lapack-dev | atlas2-base-dev > N: > N: The package seems to declare a relation on another package which is > N: already implied by other relations it declares, and is therefore > N: redundant. This is not only sloppy but can break some tools > > How else am I supposed to construct this dependency?
That seems to be a bug in lintian (see also #122742). I wrote the current iteration of that check, so I'll take a look at it. In the meantime I think you can just ignore it. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
