On Mon, 2012-10-08 at 19:22 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > Camm, > > am Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 12:02:52PM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > > Greetings! This was in line of addressing #682719. I was under the > > impression that the emacsen would cover the absence of emacs24. > > emacs24's forced in from unstable if no emacsen is installed yet. The > bug you cited does talk about *build dependencies* and about putting it > as a less-preferred build alternative (which is entirely bogus by > itself, i.e. the bug report's resolution suggesting is *wrong*, because > the buildd infrastructure will not consider such alternatives). In > gcl you changed the binary package's *dependency* specification.
Regarding the emacs23 | emacs24 dependency I thought emacs24 would enter testing. Obviously it did not make it in time. And the patch I submitted was for acl2, not gcl. Nevertheless, why build-depend on a non-existing package emacsen with emacs23 | emacsen? Additionally, it looks like emacs24 is not the default for unstable, why not? It should be for testing yes, but unstable? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
