On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 05:25:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Christof Petig wrote: > > There is no reason for glademm to build "depend" on libgnomemm-dev! It > > simply tests libgnomemm for existance to provide a reasonable default > > version. Since these days libgnomemm is rarely used (to say the least) > > nobody would notice a missing default version. > Thank you! This really does help clear things up a lot.
> > File a bug against glademm to remove any build dependancy on any of the > > gtk1/gnome1 libraries (the configure warnings are harmless, the > > functionality is still fully usable), I simply hestitate to remove the > > gtk1 functionality because it is still in use somewhere. > Great! This unclogs things in Debian a lot. > > Isn't this clear enough: > > AC_MSG_CHECKING([for gnome-- 1.x version (not needed)]) > > > > Christof (who happens to be the glademm author) > > > > PS: Anybody to cc about this? > Debian's glademm maintainer -- Bradley Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. He's not > really maintaining his packages right now, and seems to be "missing in > action", unfortunately. :-P > If you are a Debian Developer (or know one) who would like to maintain > the glademm package for Debian, we could try to get Bradley to hand over > the package. > I'm also cc:ing debian-release, debian-qa, and debian-gtk-gnome. The > original reason I was investigating this is because it's holding up the > removal of libbonobomm1.3-dev and libbonobouimm1.3-dev, which are > build-depended on by the glademm package but otherwise are unused libraries. Why is the one address *not* included on this mail the address of the relevant bug in the BTS? Apparently, no bug has been filed yet against glademm asking for the GNOME 1 dependencies to be dropped. Would you please file this bug, given that you're asking for NMUs to fix it? -- 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
