Hi, Am Sonntag, den 06.03.2011, 16:41 +0100 schrieb Olaf van der Spek: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Joachim Breitner <nome...@debian.org> wrote: > > I have a bit a bad feeling about not being able to use alternatives in > > build-depends. For example at the moment, we are renaming a self-hosting > > compiler package from ghc6 to ghc. Previously, the dependency has been > > on "ghc6". Now it is "ghc | ghc6", at least for the transition period, > > and it would be a shame if the buildds would (do?) not cope with that. > > What about renaming the pkg, have the new one provide the old one and > continue depending on the old name until the new name is widely > available?
yes, I also thought about it, and would be a sufficient solution. But besides the case in question I’d like to make the point that there might be more valid use cases for alternatives in build-depends, and we are losing flexibility here. But I’m a bit late in this thread and don’t want to re-start the discussion. I guess as long as there are work-arounds (such as the one above) it’s ok. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
