forcemerge 330751 418123 thank you
Russell Coker wrote: > On Saturday 07 April 2007 17:46, Brice Goglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >>> xutils should not depend on xutils-dev. >> I think it should, to ensure a smooth transition from sarge to etch. >> xutils-dev did not exist in sarge. xutils used to contain all what's in >> both xutils and xutils-dev now. > > In that case it should have been handled by a compatibility package. Well, this is a common example of package split. Transitional packages only help when the new packages are not named as the old one. The only way to satisfy people wanting a smooth upgrade from sarge, and not installing xutils-dev unless required on a new Etch install would have been to rename xutils into foo and foo-dev and add a transition package xutils depending on foo and foo-dev. I am not sure this reason is enough to justify a package renaming. Anyway, there's actually another bug report about this (#330751: xutils package should be splitted). I'll keep this bug in my queue of things to look at after Etch is released (it is unfortunately way too late for Etch now). >>> Also xutils-dev should probably depend on xutils. >> Why? > > It's what most packages do. Generally you don't want to develop something > unless you can also use it. xutils-dev is not really the development files associated to xutils (as libfoo-dev would be for libfoo). xutils-dev should be read as "x dev utils" (some utils that might help when building X related things) instead of "xutils dev" (some development files that might help when building xutils related things). Brice -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
