On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:36:57AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote: > > If you depend on newer features than those guaranteed by the debconf-2.0 > > interface, you will need to depend on the providers of those features > > explicitly, *without* an or on "debconf-2.0". > Thanks. I did'nt realize this fact. So if I get you right the solution > would be to get rid of the debconf-2.0 dependency. If I do so lintian is > fine, but I guess Joey Hess is not:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html > (and follow-ups) > This post was the reason why I included this dependency in the first > place. > As the debconf-2.0 package's purpose is to allow transition to cdebconf, > is depending on cdebconf explicitely as an alternative to debconf an > option? How compatible are those 'alternatives' currently. Yes, the best solution available today would be to use Depends: debconf (>= 1.3.22) | cdebconf (>= ??) I don't know what minimum version of cdebconf (if any) you should specify to get support for settitle. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
