> Sorry, I did not follow the discussion closely, so I may > understand this wrong. But how does your proposal solve the > following situation? > > libfoo1 Build-Depends on libssl0.9.6-dev > libfoo2 Build-Depends on libssl0.9.7-dev > libbreakseverything Build-Depends on libfoo1-dev and libfoo2-dev > brokenprogram Build-Depends on libbreakseverything-dev
In practice, to fix the situation,
libfoo1x (with a new soname) is introduced which depends on libssl0.9.7
regards,
junichi
