On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 02:06:52 Paul Wise wrote:
> I would be interested to see what real use-cases people wanted this
> sort of thing for. Dimitry, which specific problem were you trying to
> solve when you came up with optional-dev?
Thanks Paul, primarily I was trying to address a problem when packa
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 00:30:41 brian m. carlson wrote:
> Debian users depend on the package being built in a consistent way. For
> example, some packages are built with Kerberos support. While this is
> generally optional for most packages, I'd be very upset if, say, the
> Debian openssh-server pack
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:01:17 +1000
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:37:33 Holger Levsen wrote:
> > "optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's
> > really optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should
> > not be fixed by introducing a n
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:37:33 Holger Levsen wrote:
> "optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's
> really optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should
> not be fixed by introducing a nonsense package, but by removing this
> depends.
Not at all, it m
Hi,
On 08.09.2012 13:06, Simon McVittie wrote:
> It would perhaps make more sense if there was a way for the libchamplain
> maintainer to nominate excluded architectures, so empathy could say
> something like:
>
> Build-Depends: libchamplain-...-dev |
>champlain-unavailabl
Hi,
"optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's really
optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should not be
fixed by introducing a nonsense package, but by removing this depends.
cheers,
Holger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnp
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-de...@lists.debian.org
Package name: optional-dev
Version: 20120908
Author: Dmitry Smirnov
License: GPL-3+
Description: fake (empty) dev package
Purpose of this package is to provide an alternat
7 matches
Mail list logo
