On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 11:37:58AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote: > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 10:10:37AM -0700, Tyler MacDonald wrote: > > > > apache2-prefork-dev depends on libapr0-dev which conflicts with > > > > libapr1-dev. > > > But that should be fine, since I depend on libapr1-dev *or* > > > libapr0-dev, shouldn't it? pbuilder handles it without a problem... > > > > No. The autobuilders only use the first branch of an ORed build dependency. > > Is that a bug or a feature? I thought if something was > lintian/linda/pbuilder-safe, then it was good for release. pbuilder > definately considers each option, and there are great practical benefits in > situations like this; when debian finally moves over to apache 2.2, from > pbuilder's perspective, mod-bt shouldn't need any changes as it stands now. > But if I have to remove the "apr1 | apr0" sutff, then a new version of > mod-bt (and every other apache2 module) will be neccessary when the switch > to 2.2 happens. > > Or is there another way around this?
Yes, name it libapr-dev. If something really can use either one of the 2, I don't see why you should make a transition so hard and go and name it libapr0-dev. So I suggest you rename libapr0-dev to libapr-dev and make it provide libapr0-dev for now. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
